
    Glenn WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON YOUTH AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 17-35175
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 26, 2017
    Glenn Wilson, Pro Se
    Jacob Ryan Brown, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Defendant-Ap-pellee
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Glenn Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to set aside a settlement agreement and to vacate the order dismissing his Title VII employment action in light of that settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a denial of motion for relief from a final judgment or order. Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court' did not abuse its discretion in denying Wilson’s motion because Wilson failed to establish grounds for invalidating the parties’ settlement agreement. See Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir. 2006) (attorney mistakes are more appropriately addressed through malpractice claims, and are not a basis to vacate a judgment); Ahern v. Cent. Pac. Freight Lines, 846 F.2d 47, 48 (9th Cir. 1988) (district court’s finding that a party consented to a settlement and intended to be bound by it must be affirmed unless clearly erroneous).

We do not consider facts or documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

We do not consider issues or arguments 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).

Wilson’s motion to file physical exhibits (Docket Entry No. 9) and Oregon Youth Authority’s motion to strike portion of appellant’s reply brief (Docket Entry No. 23) are denied.

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