John Kreed v. Ohio Savings Bank;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN K REED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
OHIO SAVINGS BANK; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-55013
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-06610-PSG-MRW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
John K. Reed appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Reed fails to address the district court’s grounds for
* 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 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-55013
dismissal and has therefore waived his challenge to the district court’s order. See
Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e
will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening
brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not
supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of
documents submitted by defendant New York Community Bank. See Fed. R.
Evid. 201(b) (court may take judicial notice of a fact that is “not subject to
reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”); Lee v. City of Los
Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review and
stating that court may take judicial notice of matters of public record).
Reed’s request to include exhibits in support of his opening brief (Docket
Entry No. 9) is denied because the exhibits were not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --