Case Name: Julie Elice FONTAINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., DBA First Magnus Financial Corporation, AKA First Magnus Financial Corporation, a division of Bank of America, 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 256
Docket Number: No. 15-56948
Parties: Julie Elice FONTAINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., DBA First Magnus Financial Corporation, AKA First Magnus Financial Corporation, a division of Bank of America, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 256–257

Head Matter:
Julie Elice FONTAINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., DBA First Magnus Financial Corporation, AKA First Magnus Financial Corporation, a division of Bank of America, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-56948
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 9, 2017
Filed August 17, 2017
Julie Elice Fontaine, Pro Se
Kasey Curtis, Reed Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Elena O. Gekker, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Bank of America, N.A., The Bank of New York Mellon, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Re-contrust Company, N.A., for Defendants-Appellees
Timothy R. Pomeroy, Aldridge Pite, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Clear Recon Corporation
Ben Mohandesi, Yu Mohandesi LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Timothy R. Pomeroy, Aldridge Pite, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee, for Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing
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
Julie Elice Fontaine appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging a Truth in Lending Act claim and other claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)); Cervantes v. United States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Fontaine's action because Fontaine failed to include a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that [she] is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (pleading must do more than offer-labels and conclusions); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 8 requires that each averment of a pleading be simple, concise, and direct, stating which defendant is liable to the plaintiff for each wrong).
We reject as unsupported by the record Fontaine's contention that the district court did not provide her with adequate instructions on how to cure the deficiencies in her complaint.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.