FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESTELLA M. GUILLEN, an individual, No. 10-15001

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00704-RLH-

PAL

and

VICTOR M. LEMUS, an individual, MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL

TRUSTEE; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Roger L. Hunt, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2010 **

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

* 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). Estella M. Guillen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her action arising out of a foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. King v. California, 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th

Cir. 1986). We affirm.

Guillen’s contention that the district court dismissed the action without due

process is unpersuasive where the record indicates that she filed an opposition and

was provided a hearing on the motion to dismiss. See S.E.C. v. McCarthy, 322

F.3d 650, 659 (9th Cir. 2003) (due process requires notice and an opportunity to be

heard).

To the extent the opening brief offers any specific arguments about the

dismissal of Guillen’s claims, we do not consider them because she did not include

the relevant hearing transcript in the record on appeal. See Portland Feminist

Women’s Health Ctr. v. Advocates for Life, Inc., 877 F.2d 787, 789 (9th Cir. 1989)

(“When an appellant fails to supply a transcript of a district court proceeding, we

may . . . refuse to consider the appellant’s argument.”); see also Miller v. Fairchild

Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The Court of Appeals will not

ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued

in appellant’s opening brief.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 10-15001