Lofton Ryan Burris v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LOFTON RYAN BURRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-55517
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00114-GAF-JC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
This matter has been stayed since February 23, 2017 pending resolution of
Ho v. ReconTrust Co., N.A., No. 10-56884, or further order of the court.
Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Wells Fargo Bank, NA’s
motion to lift the stay (Docket Entry No. 30) is granted. We hereby lift the stay.
* 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). Burris’s request for oral
argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
FILED
FEB 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-55517
Lofton Ryan Burris appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Burris’s action because Burris failed to
allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See id. at 341-42 (although pro
se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual
allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by accepting defendants’
motion to dismiss over Burris’s objection that defendants had not complied with
Central District of California Local Rule 7-3. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d
1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard of review); Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d
1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The district court has considerable latitude in
managing the parties’ motion practice and enforcing local rules that place
parameters on briefing.”).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-55517
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --