Estella M. Guillen, an individual v. Deutsche Bank National Trustee;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESTELLA M. GUILLEN, an individual,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
VICTOR M. LEMUS, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUSTEE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-15001
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00704-RLH-
PAL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-15001 2
Estella M. Guillen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action arising out of a foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. King v. California, 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th
Cir. 1986). We affirm.
Guillen’s contention that the district court dismissed the action without due
process is unpersuasive where the record indicates that she filed an opposition and
was provided a hearing on the motion to dismiss. See S.E.C. v. McCarthy, 322
F.3d 650, 659 (9th Cir. 2003) (due process requires notice and an opportunity to be
heard).
To the extent the opening brief offers any specific arguments about the
dismissal of Guillen’s claims, we do not consider them because she did not include
the relevant hearing transcript in the record on appeal. See Portland Feminist
Women’s Health Ctr. v. Advocates for Life, Inc., 877 F.2d 787, 789 (9th Cir. 1989)
(“When an appellant fails to supply a transcript of a district court proceeding, we
may . . . refuse to consider the appellant’s argument.”); see also Miller v. Fairchild
Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The Court of Appeals will not
ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued
in appellant’s opening brief.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --