MEMORANDUM **

Mary S. Thuillard appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her action alleging malicious prosecution under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Lassiter v. City of Bremerton, 556 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim because Thuillard failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the prosecution was instituted or continued without *651 probable cause or with malice. See Conrad v. United States, 447 F.3d 760, 767 (9th Cir. 2006) (“In assessing the United' States’ liability under the FTCA, we are required to apply the law of the state in which the alleged tort occurred.”); Lassiter, 556 F.3d at 1054 (listing elements of a malicious prosecution claim under Washington law).

We do not consider the merits of Thuil-lard’s motions to compel discovery because the district court denied the motions without prejudice for failure to comply with procedural requirements, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1); E.D. Wash. L.R. 7.1(b), 37.1(b), and Thuillard did not renew the motions.

Thuillard’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.