
    Elisabeth J. DE TELDER-COLLINS; John Collins, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB, fka World Savings Bank; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 10-55498.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 3, 2011.
    Elisabeth J. Detelder-Collins, Lake Elsinore, CA, pro se.
    John Collins, Lake Elsinore, CA, pro se.
    Mark T. Flewelling, Jeremy E. Shul-man, Anglin, Flewelling, Rasmussen, Campbell & Trytten LLP, Pasadena, CA, Michael Rapkine, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Elisabeth J. De Telder-Collins and John Collins appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. King v. California, 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir.1986). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Appellants’ contentions, including those concerning Wachovia’s standing to proceed with foreclosure, are unpersuasive.

We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order denying appellants’ motion to reconsider because appellants failed to separately appeal that order. See TAAG Linhas Aereas de Angola v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc., 915 F.2d 1351, 1354 (9th Cir.1990).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 988, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam); Alaska v. United States, 201 F.3d 1154, 1163-1164 (9th Cir.2000) (“Where a party does not ask the district court for leave to amend, ‘the request [on appeal] to remand with instructions to permit amendment comes too late.’ ” (citation omitted)).

AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     