Michael F. Diessner, an individual v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. and AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL F. DIESSNER, an individual,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. and
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-16497
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00095-JWS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Michael F. Diessner appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action concerning foreclosure proceedings initiated by defendants. We have
FILED
JUN 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16497 2
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.
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.

-- 2 of 2 --