Alan James Bima v. Capital One; Resurgent Capital Services

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALAN JAMES BIMA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CAPITAL ONE; RESURGENT CAPITAL
SERVICES,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16138
D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00062-RCJ-CSD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert C. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Alan James Bima appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
with prejudice for failure to comply with local rules his diversity action alleging
state law claims arising from unpaid credit card charges. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 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
JUL 5 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16138
Because Bima failed to make any argument on appeal regarding the district
court’s dismissal of his complaint under the local rules, Bima has waived any
challenge to the dismissal. See Indep. Towers of Washington v. Washington, 350
F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003).
To the extent Bima challenges the district court’s order staying discovery
pending its resolution of defendants’ motions to dismiss, Bima has not shown the
district court abused its discretion. See Lazar v. Kroncke, 862 F.3d 1186, 1193,
1203 (9th Cir. 2017).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --