TOROMANOVA v. MTC (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Dimitritza Toromanova appeals pro se from the district court's order denying her motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 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 Toromanova's motion for relief from judgment because Toromanova failed to demonstrate any basis for such relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Toromanova's emergency motion “to void relief from stay order” and seeking to enjoin foreclosure proceedings pending appeal is denied. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008); see also 28 U.S.C. § 158 (bankruptcy court orders may be appealed to the district court or bankruptcy appellate panel).

Toromanova's requests for judicial notice of the case record, set forth in her opening and reply briefs, are denied as unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a) (composition of the record on appeal).

AFFIRMED.