Opinion
21-35859
11-23-2022
DAVID OLLODART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTEL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted November 15, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00125-MO Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
David Ollodart appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging various employment-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ollodart's action because Ollodart failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ("A pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)); see also Doe v. Denny's, Inc., 963 P.2d 650, 654 (Or. 1998) (elements of a constructive discharge claim); Reed v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 459 P.3d 253, 257 (Or. Ct. App. 2020) (elements of an invasion of privacy claim); Herrera v. C &M Victor Co., 337 P.3d 154, 159 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (elements of a defamation claim); Scott v. Jackson County, 260 P.3d 744, 752 (Or. Ct. App. 2011) (elements of a trespass to chattels claim); Merten v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 228 P.3d 623, 629 (Or. Ct. App. 2010) (elements of a fraud claim); Slover v. Or. State Bd. of Clinical Soc. Workers, 927 P.2d 1098, 1101-02 (Or. Ct. App. 1996) (elements of breach of contract claim).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments or allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).