Case Name: Wyvonna M. BARNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BASHAS INC, Defendant, and Mesa General Hospital Medical Center, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-14
Citations: 234 F. App'x 643
Docket Number: No. 06-16041
Parties: Wyvonna M. BARNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BASHAS INC, Defendant, and Mesa General Hospital Medical Center, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 643–643

Head Matter:
Wyvonna M. BARNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BASHAS INC, Defendant, and Mesa General Hospital Medical Center, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-16041.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2007.
Filed June 14, 2007.
Wyvonna M. Barnett, Payson, AZ, pro se.
Donald D. Colburn, Joseph A. Kendhammer, Jeanne Ellen Varner Powell, Kendhammer & Colburn LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Because the panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, Barnett’s request for a hearing is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Wyvonna M. Barnett appeals pro se from the district court's order denying her motion to reconsider the judgment in her action alleging medical negligence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 motion, see School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993), and we affirm.
Because Barnett failed to establish: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct; (4) a void judgment; (5) satisfaction, release or discharge of the judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief, the district court properly denied Barnett's motion for reconsideration. See id. at 1263.
Barnett's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Barnett's request for review of appeal or transfer to the Supreme Court is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.