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:T43b,MEMORANDUM Hector Camarena appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from the judgment following the dismissal of his action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Camarena’s motion for relief from the judgment because Camare-na did not identify any grounds for such relief from the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth grounds for relief). 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). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publi- ' cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T46d,

MEMORANDUM

Hector Camarena appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from the judgment following the dismissal of his action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Camarena’s motion for relief from the judgment because Camare-na did not identify any grounds for such relief from the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth grounds for relief).

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).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publi- ' cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.