Court Opinion

ID: 9453051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:01:03.853262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:54.005599
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        AUG 4 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHARLYN MARIE APONTE DE JESUS,                  No. 22-35548

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:22-cv-05285-BHS

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Washington
                   Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted July 18, 2023**

Before:      SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

      Sharlyn Marie Aponte de Jesus appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing her diversity action against Wells Fargo. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F.3d

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

         The district court properly dismissed Aponte de Jesus’s action because

Aponte de Jesus failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a plaintiff must present factual

allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v.

Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (a party’s conclusory allegations,

unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences need not be accepted as

true).

         Dismissal without leave to amend was proper because amendment would

have been futile. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248-49 (9th Cir.1995).

         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).

         Aponte de Jesus’s motion for discovery (Docket Entry No. 27) is denied.

         AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                      22-35548