Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT S
WYVONNA M. BARNETT, No. 06-16041 `
D.C. No. CV—03-02566-ROS
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. l
‘ JUDGMENT
BASHAS INC,
Defendant, · `
and ‘ I
MESA GENERAL HOSPITAL
MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ·
(Phoenix).
l This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
submitted.
On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
AFF1RME1>.
Filed and entered 06/14/07 g
Case 2:O3—cv—O2566—ROS Document 130 Filed O9/17/2007 age 1 of 3

I sp I h .p p,,,.-
NOT Pon PUBLICATION JUN 14 2007
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS °AT`·l?$·’if<$°~{`} FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
W Y VONNA M. BARNETT, No. 06-16041
Plaintiff- Appellant, D.C. No. CV-O3-02566-ROS
v. A
MEMORANDUM*
BASHAS INC, A V
Defendant, A
and if
MESA GENERAL HOSPITAL
MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant - Appellee. .
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 5, 2007**
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
H Because the panel unanimously finds this case Suitable for decision
without oral argument, Barnett’s request for a hearing is denied. See Fed. R. App.
P. 34(a)(2). 0
Case 2:O3—cv—O2566—ROS Document 130 Filed O9/17/2007 Page 2 of 3

1 z _
r
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Wyvonna M. Barnett appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
her motion to reconsider the judgment in her action alleging medical negligence.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion
the district court’s denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion, see School Dist. No. LL
1 _ ltlultnomah County v. ACczndS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we
affirm. .
i Because Barnett failed to establish: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or l
excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation or
other misconduct; (4) a void judgment; (5) satisfaction, release or discharge of the
judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief, the district court properly
denied Barnett’s motion for reconsideration. See id. at 1263. V
Barnett’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
3 Bamett’s request for review of appeal or transfer to the Supreme Court is (
denied. , (
AFFIRMED. (
A 2
Case 2:O3—cv—O2566—R(jS Document 130 Filed O9/17/2007 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS

Document 130

Filed 09/17/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS

Document 130

Filed 09/17/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS

Document 130

Filed 09/17/2007

Page 3 of 3