Case Name: Richard Leland NEAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-24
Citations: 301 F. App'x 679
Docket Number: No. 07-55383
Parties: Richard Leland NEAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 301
Pages: 679–680

Head Matter:
Richard Leland NEAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-55383.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2008.
Filed Nov. 24, 2008.
Richard Leland Neal, Kingman, AZ, pro se.
Michael J. Fox, Esq., Michael J. Fox Law Offices, Irvine, CA, for DefendantsAppellees.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Richard Leland Neal appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his diversity action alleging breach of a home mortgage loan contract. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the breach of contract claim because Neal failed to allege specific facts supporting the necessary elements of a breach of contract claim. See Walsh v. West Valley Mission Cmty. Coll. Dist., 66 Cal.App.4th 1532, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 725, 733 (Ct.App.1998) (outlining elements of a breach of contract claim).
The district court properly dismissed Neal's claim to quiet title because he failed to allege specific facts supporting his conclusory allegations. See Cholla Ready Mix, 382 F.3d at 973 (approving the district court's rejection of allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.