Opinion
20-55064
07-28-2021
OUDREE S. ELLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EISENMAN FAMILY TRUST; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 8:19-cv-02258-DOC-JDE
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Oudree S. Ellis appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging race discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and other federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
The district court did not err by concluding that the stipulation entered between the parties in the unlawful detainer action was a settlement of the parties' dispute and preclusive of this action.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ellis's motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because Ellis failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Rule 59(e)).
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.