Steve Linder v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVE LINDER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-16905
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03490-JAM-
KJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Steve Linder appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action
arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal without
FILED
JAN 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16905 2
leave to amend. Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010).
We affirm.
Contrary to Linder’s sole contention on appeal, the district court did not
abuse its discretion by dismissing Linder’s Truth in Lending Act damages claim,
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act claim, and negligence, fraud, and unfair
competition claims without leave to amend because amendment was futile. See id.;
see also Janas v. McCracken (In Re Silicon Graphics Sec. Litig.), 183 F.3d 970,
991 (9th Cir. 1999) (no abuse of discretion where plaintiff failed to set forth any
facts that could potentially state a claim).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --