Ray Wales v. Christopher Aguirre;

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).
11-35293
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAY WALES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHRISTOPHER AGUIRRE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-35293
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00247-RRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Ralph R. Beistline, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Alaska state prisoner Ray Wales appeals pro se from the district court’s
denial of his motion for relief from its earlier summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 suit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
FILED
JUL 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-35293 2
abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion brought pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452
F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
Because Wales has not identified any specific challenge to the district
court’s grant of summary judgment, we do not consider the merits on appeal. See
Pierce v. Multnomah County, Oregon, 76 F.3d 1032, 1037 n.3 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues generally limited to those appellant raises in opening brief).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wales’ Rule 60(b)
motion for relief from judgment because Wales failed to establish grounds for
relief. See Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1100 (allowing reversal of a Rule 60(b) order only
if the district court “does not apply the correct law, rests its decision on a clearly
erroneous finding of a material fact, or applies the correct legal standard in a
manner that results in an abuse of discretion” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Wales’ remaining arguments are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --