Lance Reberger v. MICHAEL KOEHN, ESP General Practioner;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LANCE REBERGER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL KOEHN, ESP General
Practioner; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-16143
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00551-MMD-
CBC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Lance Reberger appeals pro se from the district
court’s denial of his post-judgment motion for reconsideration in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference and retaliation. 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 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-16143
Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Reberger’s motion
for reconsideration because Reberger failed to establish any basis for such relief.
See id. at 1262-63 (grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 59 and 60(b)).
We do not consider Reberger’s contentions regarding the district court’s
grant of summary judgment because Reberger failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or a timely post-judgment tolling motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (a
notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of judgment); Fiester v. Turner, 783
F.2d 1474, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986) (under Rule 4(a)(4), an untimely post-judgment
motion does not toll the time to appeal from the judgment).
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).
Reberger’s request for judicial notice, set forth in the reply brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --