Case Name: Arthur LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MUFG UNION BANK, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-17
Citations: 696 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 16-55491
Parties: Arthur LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MUFG UNION BANK, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 268–268

Head Matter:
Arthur LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MUFG UNION BANK, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-55491
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 9, 2017
Filed August 17, 2017
Arthur Lopez, Arthur Lopez
Richard S. Sontag, Esquire, Attorney, Ruzicka & Wallace LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, 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
Arthur Lopez appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his- civil rights and antitrust action arising from a business loan transaction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Lopez's action because Lopez failed to oppose defendants' motion to dismiss. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-12 ("The failure to file any required document ,.. may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion.... "); Ghazali 46 F.3d at 53 (discussing factors to guide the court's evaluation of dismissal for failure to comply with local rules).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.