Case Name: Randall PITTMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Lynn Bussey, Plaintiff, v. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-21
Citations: 696 F. App'x 295
Docket Number: Nos. 15-56335; 16-55721
Parties: Randall PITTMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Lynn Bussey, Plaintiff, v. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
Randall PITTMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Lynn Bussey, Plaintiff, v. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 15-56335
16-55721
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 9, 2017
Filed August 21, 2017
Randall Pittman, Pro Se
Karina Ann Layugan, Attorney, Marlene M. Nicolas, Attorney, Richard J. Simmons, Esquire, Senior Trial Attorney, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Michael S. Burkhardt, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Patricia S. Riordan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Dell, Inc.
Michelle L. Steinhardt, Ronald Keith Al-berts, Gordon & Rees LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Aetna Life Insurance Company
Ian P. Culver, Booth LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Computer Professionals Unlimited, Inc.
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Randall Pittman appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to comply with local rules his employment action alleging federal and state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Pittman's claims because Pittman failed to oppose defendants' motions to dismiss. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-12 ("The failure to file any required document . may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion...."); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53-54 (setting forth factors to be considered before dismissing an action for failure to follow the local rules, affirming dismissal for failure to file opposition to motion to dismiss, and noting that pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pittman's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motions because Pittman failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.