Newlin v. Lakeside Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, Pllc

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 30 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES NEWLIN, No. 25-1368 D.C. No. 2:24-cv-00539-AKB Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* LAKESIDE PEDIATRIC & ADOLESCENT MEDICINE, PLLC; MARIA LYNNE CENTERS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Amanda K. Brailsford, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 29, 2026**

Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges.

James Newlin appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his

action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of

* 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). Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis of claim preclusion. V.V.V. & Sons Edible

Oils Ltd. v. Meenakshi Overseas, LLC, 946 F.3d 542, 545 (9th Cir. 2019). We

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Newlin’s action as barred

by claim preclusion because Newlin raised, or could have raised, his claims in a

prior action, which involved the same parties or their privies and resulted in a final

judgment on the merits. See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Plan.

Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth elements of claim

preclusion under federal law).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 25-1368