Case Name: Rapheal G. RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA; Service Link, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-02
Citations: 679 F. App'x 578
Docket Number: No. 16-35076
Parties: Rapheal G. RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA; Service Link, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 679
Pages: 578–579

Head Matter:
Rapheal G. RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA; Service Link, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-35076
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed March 2, 2017
Rapheal G. Russell, Pro Se
Kasey Curtis, Reed Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Steven J. Dixson, Attorney, Christopher George Varallo, Attorney, Witherspoon Kelley, Spokane, WA, Elena 0, Gekker, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Bank of America
Matthew Cleverley, Trial Attorney, Fidelity National Law Group, Columbia Center, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Service Link
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, 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
Rapheal G. Russell appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his diversity action for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Russell's action because Russell failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief and failed to oppose defendants' motions to dismiss. See id. at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also W.D. Wash. R. 7(b)(2) (the court may deem ,a failure to oppose a motion as an admission that the motion has merit).
We do not consider arguments not raised in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 988, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as without merit Russell's argument related to the district court's failure to change the trial date.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.