Case Name: Paul D.S. EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAPITAL ONE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-19
Citations: 46 F. App'x 560
Docket Number: No. 02-15234; D.C. No. CV-01-01170-LRH
Parties: Paul D.S. EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAPITAL ONE; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 46
Pages: 560–561

Head Matter:
Paul D.S. EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAPITAL ONE; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 02-15234.
D.C. No. CV-01-01170-LRH.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 9, 2002.
Decided Sept. 19, 2002.
Before HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, .and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Paul D.S. Edwards appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing with prejudice his claim under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1691-1691f. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Capital One did not violate ECOA or its implementing regulation by placing ECOA's required language on page 3 of the letter it sent Edwards regarding his application for a credit card. See 12 C.F.R. § 202.9(b)(1) & app. C; see also Fed. Reserve Bd. Official Staff Commentary, 50 Fed.Reg. 48018 (Nov. 20, 1985).
Edwards' remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by . Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. Edwards does not appeal the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his state law claims.