MEMORANDUM **

Michael A. Leon appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging that defendants made false statements about him in violation of state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. Munoz v. Mabus, 630 F.3d 856, 860 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

Leon is correct that the district court had diversity jurisdiction over his action based on allegations that Leon and the only named defendant, Fiona Crrieg, reside in different states, and Leon seeks over $75,000 in damages. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (requirements for diversity jurisdiction).

Leon fails to raise any other issues on appeal and, therefore, we affirm. See Pierce v. Multnomah County, Or., 76 F.3d 1032, 1037 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument in pro se brief are deemed abandoned); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.