NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TINA MARIE BRADFORD, No. 20-56148
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-03691-PSG-AS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Tina Marie Bradford appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
her action alleging claims arising from an infection suffered while she was
employed as a substitute teacher. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
*
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 and denies Bradford’s request for oral argument, set forth in
her opening and reply briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with local
rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Bradford’s
action because Bradford failed to file a timely opposition to defendants’ motions to
dismiss. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-9 (requiring the filing of an opposition or statement of
non-opposition to a motion to dismiss not later than twenty-one days before the
hearing date); C.D. Cal. R. 7-12 (providing that the failure to file any required
document within the deadline may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of
the motion); see also Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53-54 (discussing factors to guide the
court’s evaluation of dismissal for failure to comply with local rules).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bradford’s motion
to reopen for new trial because Bradford failed to demonstrate any grounds for
relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a).
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
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
///
///
2 20-56148
Bradford’s motions “for defendant(s) to forward deposition and deposition
video” are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-56148