RANDALL PITTMAN V. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, No. 15-56335 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RANDALL PITTMAN, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 15-56335 16-55721 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-07857-SVWFFM and LYNN BUSSEY, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff, v. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 9, 2017** Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Randall Pittman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). for failure to comply with local rules his employment action alleging federal and state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Pittman’s claims because Pittman failed to oppose defendants’ motions to dismiss. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-12 (“The failure to file any required document . . . may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion . . . .”); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53-54 (setting forth factors to be considered before dismissing an action for failure to follow the local rules, affirming dismissal for failure to file opposition to motion to dismiss, and noting that pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pittman’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motions because Pittman failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 2 15-56335 in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 3 15-56335
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.
