Rapheal G. Russell v. Bank of America; Service Link

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAPHEAL G. RUSSELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA; SERVICE LINK,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-35076
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00306-RSL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Rapheal G. Russell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his diversity action for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341
(9th Cir. 2010). 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).
FILED
MAR 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-35076
The district court properly dismissed Russell’s action because Russell failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief and failed to oppose defendants’
motions to dismiss. See id. at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally
construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief); see also W.D. Wash. R. 7(b)(2) (the court may deem a
failure to oppose a motion as an admission that the motion has merit).
We do not consider arguments not raised in the opening brief. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as without merit Russell’s argument related to the district court’s
failure to change the trial date.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --