Randall Pittman v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANDALL PITTMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
LYNN BUSSEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 15-56335
16-55721
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-07857-SVW-
FFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Randall Pittman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-56335
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

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-56335
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --