Esther Fuchs v. University of Arizona

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESTHER FUCHS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-15333
D.C. No. 4:10-cv-00606-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Esther Fuchs appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her
motion to reconsider the court’s judgment dismissing her action under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
FILED
JAN 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15333 2
We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v.
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Fuchs’s motion to
reconsider because Fuchs failed to show grounds warranting reconsideration. See
id. at 1263 (stating grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, nor issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (declining to consider
matters not distinctly argued in the opening brief). We also do not consider any
documents attached to Fuchs’s briefs that were not part of the district court record.
See Barcamerica Int’l USA Trust v. Tyfield Imps., Inc., 289 F.3d 589, 595 (9th Cir.
2002).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --