James L. Macklin v. MATTHEW HOLLINGSWORTH, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES L. MACKLIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MATTHEW HOLLINGSWORTH, Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16034
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01097-MCE-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
James L. Macklin appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion
for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s order denying a motion to vacate a
* 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). Macklin’s request for oral
argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
FILED
OCT 4 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-16034
judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). Exp. Group v. Reef Indus., Inc., 54 F.3d
1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Macklin’s motion to vacate its order under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) because Macklin failed to demonstrate that the district
court “lacked jurisdiction, either as to the subject matter of the dispute or over the
parties to be bound, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.”
United States v. Berke, 170 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir. 1999).
To the extent Macklin seeks relief from the bankruptcy court’s judgment in a
separate proceeding, such relief is outside the scope of this appeal. Moreover, the
bankruptcy court entered an order denying Macklin’s request for relief under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b) and Macklin unsuccessfully appealed that order. See Macklin v.
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., No. 16-15366 (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2016).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --