eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2021-03

Philip Emiabata v. Bb&t Branch Banking ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PHILIP O. EMIABATA,                             No. 20-15258
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05207-SPL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BB&T BRANCH BANKING; JACQUE
DOLOTINA,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before:      GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Philip O. Emiabata appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his diversity action alleging slander and libel claims. We have
jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for an abuse of discretion a
district court’s dismissal pursuant to its local rules. Ghazali v. Moran,
    46 F.3d 52
    ,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Emiabata’s
action because Emiabata failed to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss. See
    id. at 53-54
     (factors to consider before dismissing an action for failure to follow a district
court’s local rules; where the district court does not make explicit findings
concerning the factors, we “review the record independently to determine if [it] has
abused its discretion”); see also D. Ariz. R. 7.2(i) (“[I]f the unrepresented party or
counsel does not serve and file the required answering memoranda . . . such non-
compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and
the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Emiabata’s motion
to vacate the dismissal because Emiabata failed to demonstrate any basis for relief.
See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,
    5 F.3d 1255
    , 1262-63
(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)).
We reject as unpersuasive Emiabata’s contention that the district court’s
denial of his post-dismissal motion for extension of time deprived him of due
process or the opportunity to obtain legal counsel.
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
2                                      20-15258
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright,
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3                               20-15258