Sharlyn Marie Aponte De Jesus v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.a.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHARLYN MARIE APONTE DE JESUS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-35548
D.C. No. 3:22-cv-05285-BHS
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
AUG 4 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-35548
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 of 2 --