ESTHER FUCHS V. UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, No. 11-15333 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 24 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ESTHER FUCHS, No. 11-15333 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:10-cv-00606-DCB v. MEMORANDUM * UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. 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. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 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. 2 11-15333

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.