In re: CARLTON ROARK v. LESLIE T. GLADSTONE, Trustee;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: CARLTON ROARK,
Debtor,
______________________________
CARLTON ROARK,
Appellant,
v.
LESLIE T. GLADSTONE, Trustee; et al.,
Appellees.
No. 21-55040
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-02117-TWR-
WVG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Todd W. Robinson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 7 debtor Carlton Roark appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Roark’s motion for
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-55040
reconsideration of a settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 158(d). We review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a
bankruptcy court, and we apply the same standard of review the district court
applied to the bankruptcy court’s decision. Christensen v. Tucson Ests., Inc. (In re
Tucson Ests., Inc.), 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Roark’s motion
for reconsideration of a settlement agreement because Roark failed to establish any
basis for relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (providing that Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60 applies to motions for relief from a judgment or order in a
bankruptcy case); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for
reconsideration under Rule 60); see also Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229
F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A [motion for reconsideration] may not be used to
raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably
have been raised earlier in the litigation.”).
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).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --