Case Name: Michael F. DIESSNER, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. and Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-17
Citations: 384 F. App'x 609
Docket Number: No. 09-16497
Parties: Michael F. DIESSNER, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. and Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 384
Pages: 609–609

Head Matter:
Michael F. DIESSNER, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. and Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-16497.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 17, 2010.
Veronica Lynn Manolio, Merrick Brian Firestone, Esquire, Ronan & Firestone PLC, Scottsdale, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Robert W. Norman, Jr., Houser & Allison, APC, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Diessner's request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael F. Diessner appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his action concerning foreclosure proceedings initiated by defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Seinfeld v. Bartz, 322 F.3d 693, 696 (9th Cir.2003), and we review for an abuse of discretion a denial of a motion to alter or amend a judgment, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993).
We affirm the dismissal for the reasons stated in the district court's order entered on May 18, 2009, 618 F.Supp.2d 1184.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Diessner's motion to alter or amend because Diessner failed to identify any basis to reconsider the judgment. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1262-63 (setting forth requirements for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.