MEMORANDUM **

Reuben Nieves appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging, inter alia, that the defendant banks violated his due process rights by proceeding with a nonjudicial foreclosure sale on his property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Rivera v. United States, 924 F.2d 948, 950 (9th Cir. 1991). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Nieves failed to allege facts demonstrating that the defendants’ conduct constituted government action sufficient to support a claim under section 1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). See Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 56, 119 S.Ct. 977, 143 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999) (explaining that extensive regulation does not convert a private company into a state actor liable under section 1983); Apao v. Bank of N.Y., 324 F.3d 1091, 1095 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding that a bank using a non-judicial foreclosure procedure provided by state law was not a government actor under section 1983); Mathis v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 891 F.2d 1429, 1432 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The standards for determining whether an action is governmental are the same whether the purported nexus is to the state or to the federal government.”).

Nieves’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

*845 Appellees’ motions to take judicial notice are granted.

AFFIRMED.