Case Name: William RADCLIFFE, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA and Professional Recovery Services, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-11
Citations: 561 F. App'x 622
Docket Number: No. 12-55088
Parties: William RADCLIFFE, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA and Professional Recovery Services, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: BYBEE and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and ZILLY, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 561
Pages: 622–623

Head Matter:
William RADCLIFFE, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA and Professional Recovery Services, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-55088.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 5, 2014.
Filed March 11, 2014.
Andrew R. Stilwell, Stilwell & Associates Inc., San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jonathan Matthew Hurst, Bryan Cave LLP, Irvine, CA, Brandon L. Reeves, Andrew M. Steinheimer, Ellis Law Group LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: BYBEE and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and ZILLY, Senior District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
William Radcliffe appeals the district court's denial of his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Radcliffe's motion for relief from final judgment on the ground of excusable neglect. We reject Radcliffe's argument that the district court failed to analyze the reason for the delay, the third factor set forth in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 385, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993), and Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir.1997). The district court cited each of the four factors set forth in these cases and stated that Radcliffe's "failure to comply with the rules of this Court on several occasions renders Pioneer factors three and four heavily in Defendants' favor." Nor was the district court's analysis of the remaining Pioneer-Briones factors "illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record." United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1263 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc). Counsel's repeated failure to comply with the local rules supported the district court's discretionary determination.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.