GEOFFREY LAWSON V. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC, No. 13-35345 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 04 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GEOFFREY ROBERT LAWSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-35345 D.C. No. 3:10-cv-05481-BHS v. MEMORANDUM* OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Geoffrey Robert Lawson, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions in his action alleging wrongful foreclosure and other federal and state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. * 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). Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., 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 Lawson’s Rule 60(b) motions because Lawson failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. See id. at 1263 (grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)); see also Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 394-95 (1993); Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381-82 (9th Cir. 1997). 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). All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 13-35345

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.