Opinion
No. 11-15333 D.C. No. 4:10-cv-00606-DCB
01-24-2012
ESTHER FUCHS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, Defendant - Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
--------
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. 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.