Little

MEMORANDUM **

Mary Sue Little appeals the district court’s decision to grant the City of Oakland’s motion for summary judgment. Specifically, Little argues that Oakland denied her Due Process before demolishing her building in August 1998, and that various inspections of her condemned property conducted by Oakland police officers and city officials violated the Fourth Amendment. Little also argues that the district court erred in denying her motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(1). We affirm.

I

The fundamental requirements of procedural Due Process are notice and an opportunity to be heard. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); Conner v. City of Santa Ana, 897 F.2d 1487, 1492 (9th Cir. 1990). Oakland provided Little with multiple notices of its intent to demolish the building, and offered her many chances to stop the demolition. Oakland provided Little with notice of its Declaration of Public Nuisance in December 1997, and also notified her of her right to appeal. The Declaration clearly listed demolition as one way Oakland could abate a public nuisance. Little appealed the Declaration,…