<r‘- '-:::" `: ~. ~’…H- ‘\-'f r'!-\Dr§i.'i;:;r';;» Z§l& NBV l9 AH 8=1¢2 iN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASH£NGTON B|VlSlON ONE MARC|A N||LES, ) NO. 76875-1-¥ Appef|ant, § v. g UNPUBL|SHED OP|N|ON BEN A, GOOLD, lVl.D., et ai., § Ftespondents. § FlLED: November 19, 2018

PER CunrAM _- Marc§a Nlifes appeals a 2016 summary judgment order dismissing her comptaint against respondents for negligent medica¥ care, disability discrimination, and other causes of action. She a¥so appeals a 2017 order denying her motion to vacate the summary judgment order under CR 60(b)(11). We affirm. |V|i£es cannot appea£ the 2016 order since she previously appealed it to the Washington State Supreme Court, which dismissed the appea¥ and issued a mandate. See RAP 12.2. She also cannot appeal the 2016 order because our review is limited to the decision denying her motion to vacate the judgment, not the underlying judgment Bjurstrorn v. Carnpbe|i, 27 Wn. App. 449, 450-51, 618 P.2d 533 (1980).

Mi|es’s appeal from the 2017 order denying her motion to vacate fails because her briefs contain no assignments of error, argument, or authority No. 76875-1-|/2 relating to that order or CR 60(b) (11). § RAP 10.3(a). Saunders v. Lioyd's of M 113 Wn.2d 330, 345, 779 P.2d 249 (1989) (appeilate court need not consider issues unsupported by adequate argument and authority); wgn Builders. E_LC v. GNlP Homes VG. LLC. 161 Wn. App. 474, 486, 254 P.3d 835 (2011) (“VVe will not consider an inadequately briefed argument."). ¥\Ailes's attempt to appeal GR 33 orders “rnade throughout the case” fails because any such orders flied prior to the Supreme Court’s mandate are final, and because the court below granted lVliles’s GR 33 request RAP 3.1 (“[ojniy an aggrieved party may seek review by the appeiiate court,").

Affirmed.

For the Court: izzo ¢5§¢;)_' @Awa,j