Michael Leon v. Fiona Grieg , 594 F. App'x 439 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 2 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL A. LEON, No. 13-15997
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00289-DCB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FIONA GRIEG, an individual;
UNKNOWN PARTIES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 Grieg,
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.
2 13-15997