Carmen Suarez-Smith v. Bac Home Loan Servicing, Lp , 645 F. App'x 531 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARMEN SUAREZ-SMITH, No. 13-17654
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00201-GMN-
PAL
v.
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP; et MEMORANDUM*
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Carmen Suarez-Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her diversity action alleging state law foreclosure claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a
*
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).
dismissal for failure to prosecute. Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th
Cir. 1996). We affirm.
Suarez-Smith fails to challenge the district court’s dismissal of her action for
failure to prosecute, and has therefore waived any such challenge. See Smith v.
Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised
by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”). Because Suarez-Smith’s
action was dismissed for failure to prosecute, we do not consider her challenges to
the district court’s interlocutory order dismissing her complaint with leave to
amend. See Al-Torki, 78 F.3d at 1386 (if the dismissal is for failure to prosecute,
interlocutory orders are not appealable regardless of whether the failure to
prosecute was purposeful or the result of negligence or mistake).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-17654