Uzoma Igbonwa v. Facebook, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UZOMA IGBONWA, No. 19-15121
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-02027-JCS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FACEBOOK, INC.; MARK
ZUCKERBERG,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Joseph C. Spero, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted November 18, 2019***
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Uzoma Igbonwa appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his diversity action alleging negligence, defamation, discrimination, and breach of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
contract. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Doe
v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846, 849 (9th Cir. 2016). We may affirm on any
basis supported in the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.
2008).
The district court properly dismissed Igbonwa’s negligence, defamation, and
discrimination claims as barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency
Act because interactive computer service providers are immune under the Act from
civil liability from claims premised upon the provider’s role as “the publisher or
speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2009).
Dismissal of Igbonwa’s breach of contract claim was proper because
Igbonwa failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants violated any
provision in the Terms of Service. See Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors, XXVI,
LLC, 126 Cal. Rptr. 3d 174, 183 (Ct. App. 2011) (setting forth required elements to
state a claim for breach of contract).
2 19-15121
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 19-15121