22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4f2,MEMORANDUM 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. 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 , 113 S.Ct. 1489 , 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (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. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T529,

MEMORANDUM

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. 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 , 113 S.Ct. 1489 , 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (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.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.