
    Randall PITTMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Lynn Bussey, Plaintiff, v. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 15-56335
    16-55721
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 21, 2017
    Randall Pittman, Pro Se
    Karina Ann Layugan, Attorney, Marlene M. Nicolas, Attorney, Richard J. Simmons, Esquire, Senior Trial Attorney, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
    Michael S. Burkhardt, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Patricia S. Riordan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Dell, Inc.
    Michelle L. Steinhardt, Ronald Keith Al-berts, Gordon & Rees LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Aetna Life Insurance Company
    Ian P. Culver, Booth LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Computer Professionals Unlimited, Inc.
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Randall Pittman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with local rules his employment action alleging federal and state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Pittman’s claims because Pittman failed to oppose defendants’ motions to dismiss. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-12 (“The failure to file any required document ... may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion....”); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53-54 (setting forth factors to be considered before dismissing an action for failure to follow the local rules, affirming dismissal for failure to file opposition to motion to dismiss, and noting that pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pittman’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motions because Pittman failed to establish 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 reconsideration 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).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     