Mary Alice Nelson Rogers v. Jp Morgan Chase, N.a.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARY ALICE NELSON ROGERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE, N.A.; CHASE
HOME FINANCE LLC; MERSCORP, INC.;
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC; LEE
SEALE; K. LEON; KATHLEEN DIPPERT;
SCOTT JONES,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 23-15768
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01954-TLN-CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Mary Alice Nelson Rogers appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction
* 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
FEB 28 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-15768
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s sua sponte
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Omar v. Sea-Land
Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rogers’s action because Rogers failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as unsupported by the record Rogers’s contention that defendants
or the district court violated her constitutional rights.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --