Alan Bima v. Capital One

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 5 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK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