
    Joel David JOSEPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORDSTROM, INC.; New Balance Athletics, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-56895
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed November 9, 2017
    Joel David Joseph, Pro Se
    Elizabeth Brenckman, Fish & Richardson, New York, NY, Sheryl Garko, Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, MA, R. David Hosp, Mark Puzella, Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, MA, Garrett K. Sakimae, Attorney, Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Joseph’s requests for oral argument, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, are denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joel David Joseph appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motions to reopen his diversity action alleging state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of motions to alter or amend and for reconsideration. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2012) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a)); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Joseph’s motion to reopen his case or his motion to reconsider the denial of that motion because Joseph failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)); Blanton v. Anza lone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 (9th Cir. 1987) (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(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).

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