Sharlyn Aponte-De Jesus v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-35548

Filed Date: 8/4/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/4/2023