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:T4dc,MEMORANDUM Esther Fuchs appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to reconsider the court’s judgment dismissing her action under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. U, Multnomah County, 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 Fuchs’s motion to reconsider because Fuchs failed to show grounds warranting reconsideration. See id. at 1263 (stating grounds for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, nor issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 , 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (declining to consider matters not distinctly argued in the opening brief). We also do not consider any documents attached to Fuchs’s briefs that were not part of the district court record. See Barcamerica Int’l USA Trust v. Tyfield Imps., Inc., 289 F.3d 589, 595 (9th Cir.2002). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T50e,

MEMORANDUM

Esther Fuchs appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to reconsider the court’s judgment dismissing her action under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. U, Multnomah County, 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 Fuchs’s motion to reconsider because Fuchs failed to show grounds warranting reconsideration. See id. at 1263 (stating grounds for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, nor issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 , 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (declining to consider matters not distinctly argued in the opening brief). We also do not consider any documents attached to Fuchs’s briefs that were not part of the district court record. See Barcamerica Int’l USA Trust v. Tyfield Imps., Inc., 289 F.3d 589, 595 (9th Cir.2002).

AFFIRMED.

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