Patricia Morrison v. Quest Diagnostics Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 21, 2021

Docket21-15277

StatusUnpublished

This text of Patricia Morrison v. Quest Diagnostics Inc. (Patricia Morrison v. Quest Diagnostics Inc.) 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

Patricia Morrison v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., (9th Cir. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PATRICIA HARDING MORRISON, No. 21-15277

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01207-RFB-BNW

v. MEMORANDUM* QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC.; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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). 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 21-15277

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PATRICIA HARDING MORRISON, No. 21-15277

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01207-RFB-BNW

v. MEMORANDUM* QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC.; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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). 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 21-15277

Related

Richard L. Nevitt v. United States

886 F.2d 1187 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)

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)

Padgett v. Wright

587 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Patricia Morrison v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patricia-morrison-v-quest-diagnostics-inc-ca9-2021.