Opinion
21-16614
10-18-2022
RAYMOND HEALEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KIM ADAMSON; BRIAN EGERTON; MICHAEL MINEV; CONNELLY, Nurse, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 12, 2022.[**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada D.C. No. 3:19-cv-00483-MMD-CLB, Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding.
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Raymond Healey appeals pro se from the district court's order granting defendants' motion to enforce a settlement agreement in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the oral settlement agreement because its findings that Healey accepted the terms of a complete settlement agreement and that the agreement was supported by consideration were not contrary to law or clearly erroneous. See Golden v. Cal. Emergency Physicians Med. Grp., 782 F.3d 1083, 1089 (9th Cir. 2015) (construction and enforcement of a settlement agreement is governed by state law of contract interpretation); Maynard v. City of San Jose, 37 F.3d 1396, 1401 (9th Cir. 1994) (reversal of decision regarding enforceability of settlement agreement "is appropriate only if the court based its decision on an error of law or clearly erroneous findings of fact" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Cain v. Price, 415 P.3d 25, 28 (Nev. 2018) (explaining that a settlement under Nevada law must be supported by consideration).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Healey's motion for reconsideration because Healey set forth no valid grounds for such 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 reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).