Mary Nelson Rogers v. Jp Morgan Chase, N.A.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 28 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARY ALICE NELSON ROGERS, No. 23-15768

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01954-TLN-CKD v.

MEMORANDUM* JP MORGAN CHASE, N.A.; CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC; MERSCORP, INC.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC; LEE SEALE; K. LEON; KATHLEEN DIPPERT; SCOTT JONES,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Mary Alice Nelson Rogers appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s sua sponte dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Rogers’s action because Rogers failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Rogers’s contention that defendants or the district court violated her constitutional rights.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-15768