Patricia Harding Morrison v. Quest Diagnostics Inc.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIA HARDING MORRISON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15277
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01207-RFB-BNW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Patricia Harding Morrison appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying her post-judgment motion to reopen her diversity action. 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
* 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
DEC 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15277
Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Morrison’s motion
to reopen the action because the motion was filed more than one year after entry of
judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); Nevitt v. United States, 886 F.2d 1187,
1188 (9th Cir. 1989) (motion for relief from judgment based on newly discovered
evidence must be made within one year after judgment was entered).
We do not consider Morrison’s contentions regarding the district court’s
denial of her prior post-judgment motions because Morrison failed to file a timely
notice of appeal of these post-judgment orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A)
(notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days from 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).
Morrison’s supplemented motion for injunctive relief (Docket Entry Nos. 28
and 29) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --