
    Anna VERTKIN, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Anna Vertkin, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, and Maria Socorro Ruiz Guevara, Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 11-15211, 11-15215.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 20, 2012.
    Anna Vertkin, M.D., San Rafael, CA, pro se.
    Jan T. Chilton, Donald H. Cram, III, Esquire, Mark Douglas Lonergan, Esquire, Casey J. McTigue, Andrew W. Noble, Esquire, Severson & Werson, San Francisco, CA, Robert T. Finlay, Nicole K. Neff, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, Albert E. Cordova, Albert E. Cordova, PLC, San Rafael, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Anna Vertkin, M.D., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgments dismissing her related actions arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a recusal motion. Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Vertkin’s motions to disqualify the district court judge because Vertkin failed to demonstrate that the judge’s impartiality might be reasonably questioned, that the judge had a personal bias or prejudice, or that either the judge or his former law firm represented a defendant in the instant matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)-(b)(2) (setting forth grounds for recusal, including if the judge “served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter”); Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (“[Jjudicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”).

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) (per curiam).

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