Court Opinion

ID: 9407041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-05 18:01:48.064271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:35.066210
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JUL 5 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALAN JAMES BIMA,                                 No. 22-16138

                Plaintiff-Appellant,             D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00062-RCJ-CSD

 v.

CAPITAL ONE; RESURGENT CAPITAL                   MEMORANDUM*
SERVICES,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Nevada
                     Robert C. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Alan James Bima appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing

with prejudice for failure to comply with local rules his diversity action alleging

state law claims arising from unpaid credit card charges. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

      *
             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).
      Because Bima failed to make any argument on appeal regarding the district

court’s dismissal of his complaint under the local rules, Bima has waived any

challenge to the dismissal. See Indep. Towers of Washington v. Washington, 350

F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003).

      To the extent Bima challenges the district court’s order staying discovery

pending its resolution of defendants’ motions to dismiss, Bima has not shown the

district court abused its discretion. See Lazar v. Kroncke, 862 F.3d 1186, 1193,

1203 (9th Cir. 2017).

      All pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                   22-16138