Case ID: f-appx_633/html/0647-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard WHITMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, NA; Wells Fargo Bank, NA, as Trustee for the Holders of the Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investor Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-WMCI, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-35504.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 29, 2016.
    Richard Whitmore, Fairview, OR, pro se.
    Pilar Cortwright French, Esquire, Peter D. Hawkes, Brian T. Kiolbasa, Esquire, Lane Powell PC, Portland, OR, Steven Andrew Ellis, Goodwin Procter LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard Whitmore appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir.2014). We affirm.

We do not consider the claims raised in Whitmore’s opening brief because they were not raised before the district court. See Solis v. Matheson, 563 F.3d 425, 437 (9th Cir.2009) (arguments made for the first time on appeal and supported by facts not before the district court are waived). Moreover, Whitmore failed to address the district court’s dismissal of the claims alleged in his complaint in his opening brief, and has therefore waived his appeal of the district court’s dismissal order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) (“[Arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

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