Home/Ninth Circuit/Esther Fuchs v. University of Arizona

Esther Fuchs v. University of Arizona

467 F. App'x 564
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 24, 2012
Docket11-15333
StatusUnpublished

This text of 467 F. App'x 564 (Esther Fuchs v. University of Arizona) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Esther Fuchs v. University of Arizona, 467 F. App'x 564 (9th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

*565 MEMORANDUM **

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. U, 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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Barcamerica International USA Trust, a California Trust, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Tyfield Importers, Inc., a Corporation Cantine Leonardo Da Vinci Soc. Coop., A.R.L., an Entity of Italy, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees v. George Gino Barca, Third-Party-Defendant
289 F.3d 589 (Third Circuit, 2002)
Padgett v. Wright
587 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
467 F. App'x 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esther-fuchs-v-university-of-arizona-ca9-2012.