Jeffrey Glenn Heston v. GB CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC, a Limited Liability Corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY GLENN HESTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GB CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC, a Limited
Liability Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-55125
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00912-WQH-
AGS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey Glenn Heston appeals pro se from the district court’s January 5, 2018
post-judgment order denying relief from its order granting defendant’s motion to
compel arbitration and dismissing Heston’s action. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J,
* 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
AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-55125
Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Heston’s motion
for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) because
Heston failed to set forth any basis for relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds
for relief under Rule 60(b)).
We do not consider the district court’s order granting defendant’s motion to
compel arbitration and dismissing the action, or the December 15, 2016 order
denying Heston’s motion for relief, because the notice of appeal is untimely as to
those orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (a motion under Rule 60(b) extends
the time to file an appeal if the motion is filed no later than 28 days after judgment
is entered); Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs., 138 S. Ct. 13, 17-18 (2017) (a
time limit not prescribed by Congress is a mandatory claim-processing rule and if
properly invoked, mandatory claim-processing rules must be enforced); Demaree
v. Pederson, 887 F.3d 870, 876 (9th Cir. 2018) (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) is a
mandatory claim-processing rule under Hamer).
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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --