Alan Bima v. Capital One

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 5, 2023
• Docket: 22-16138
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 5 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALAN JAMES BIMA, No. 22-16138

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00062-RCJ-CSD

v.

CAPITAL ONE; RESURGENT CAPITAL MEMORANDUM* SERVICES,

Defendants-Appellees.

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). 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 22-16138