Case Name: Hector CAMARENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-17
Citations: 693 F. App'x 717
Docket Number: No. 16-56233
Parties: Hector CAMARENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 717–717

Head Matter:
Hector CAMARENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-56233
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 2017
Filed July 17, 2017
Hector Camarena, Pro Se
U.S. Attorney CV, Esquire, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Hector Camarena appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for relief from the judgment following the dismissal of his action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Casey v. Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Camarena's motion for relief from the judgment because Camare-na did not identify any grounds for such relief from the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth grounds for relief).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publi- ' cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.