FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 05 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: LORECE WRIGHT, No. 14-56854
Debtor. D.C. No. 2:11-cv-10267-CAS
______________________________
ANTHONY WRIGHT, Sr., MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC; et
al.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Anthony Wright, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming
the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo, Suncrest
Healthcare Ctr. LLC v. Omega Healthcare Inv’rs, Inc. (In re Raintree Healthcare
Corp.), 431 F.3d 685, 687 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wright failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact to support his state law claims. See
Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 1999) (an appellate
court must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and
whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law).
Contrary to Wright’s contention, Wright consented to the bankruptcy court’s
jurisdiction. See Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932, 1942
(2015) (litigants may consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court; consent may
be express or implied); see also Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580 (2003) (inferring
consent prevents a party from challenging jurisdiction after unfavorable rulings).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
2 14-56854
We do not consider Wright’s motion for reconsideration filed August 29,
2016 because, in its August 26, 2016 order, this court expressly stated that no
motions for reconsideration of that order would be entertained.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-56854