Case Name: Michael A. LEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fiona GRIEG, an individual; Unknown Parties, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-02
Citations: 594 F. App'x 439
Docket Number: No. 13-15997
Parties: Michael A. LEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fiona GRIEG, an individual; Unknown Parties, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 439–440

Head Matter:
Michael A. LEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fiona GRIEG, an individual; Unknown Parties, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-15997.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
Filed March 2, 2015.
Michael A.- Leon, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael A. Leon appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging that defendants made false statements about him in violation of state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. Munoz v. Mabus, 630 F.3d 856, 860 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.
Leon is correct that the district court had diversity jurisdiction over his action based on allegations that Leon and the only named defendant, Fiona Crrieg, reside in different states, and Leon seeks over $75,000 in damages. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (requirements for diversity jurisdiction).
Leon fails to raise any other issues on appeal and, therefore, we affirm. See Pierce v. Multnomah County, Or., 76 F.3d 1032, 1037 n. 3 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument in pro se brief are deemed abandoned); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir.1994) ("We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party's opening brief.").
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.