Michael A. Bruzzone v. James McManis; William Faulkner; William Haskell Alsup

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAMES MCMANIS; WILLIAM
FAULKNER; WILLIAM HASKELL
ALSUP,
Defendants-Appellees,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Real-party-in-interest-
Appellee.
No. 22-16474
D.C. No. 4:18-cv-01235-PJH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Michael A. Bruzzone appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
* 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
SEP 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16474
his post-judgment motion in this action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Flores v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 720, 731
(9th Cir. 2020) (denial of motion under Rule 60(b)); Far Out Prods., Inc. v. Oskar,
247 F.3d 986, 998 (9th Cir. 2001) (denial of motion under Rule 52(b)). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bruzzone’s motion
as untimely because it was filed almost four years after the entry of judgment. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) (a motion to amend findings under Rule 52(b) must be “filed
no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (a
motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1-3) must be filed “no more than
a year after the entry of the judgment”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --