Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0984-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stanley Marcus GALYEAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-35604
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 22, 2016
    Stanley Marcus Galyean, Pro Se
    Heidi E. Buck Morrison, Racine Olson Nye Budge & Bailey, Chtd., Pocatello, ID, for Defendants-Appellees Northwest Trustee Services Inc., Routh Crabtree Olsen PS
    Cody B. Hoesly, Attorney, Larkins Va-cura LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appellees Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Indymac Mortgage Services
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this' case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Stanley Marcus Galyean appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of the foreclosure of his home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

To the extent that Galyean raises his contract claims on appeal, the district court properly dismissed them because Ga-lyean failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Zuver v. Airtouch Communications, Inc., 153 Wash.2d 293, 103 P.3d 753, 759-68 (2004) (discussing unconseiona-bility of contracts under Washington law). Galyean waived any challenge to the dismissal of his other claims, most of which were dismissed as time-barred, by failing to explain in his opening brief how the district court erred. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

We reject as without merit Galyean’s contentions that Defendant IndyMac Federal Bank did not exist at the time defendants foreélosed on his home, that his loan was improperly “converted to an eMort-gage,” and that he had the right to demand production of his promissory note prior to paying it.

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