FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL B. SPARLIN; SHARON J. No. 11-17259
SPARLIN,
D.C. No. 4:11-cv-00371-DCB
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS
INCORPORATED; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Michael B. and Sharon J. Sparlin appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal based on
*
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).
preclusion principles. Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1064 (9th Cir. 2010)
(collateral estoppel); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002)
(res judicata). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson
v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Dismissal of the Sparlins’ action as barred by the doctrines of collateral
estoppel and res judicata was proper because the Sparlins had a full and fair
opportunity to litigate the issues and claims arising out of the foreclosure
proceedings at issue in their prior action against nearly identical defendants, and
that action was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. See Wolfson,
616 F.3d at 1064 (discussing elements of collateral estoppel); Stewart, 297 F.3d at
956-57 (discussing elements of res judicata, and noting that “dismissal for failure
to state a claim” constitutes a final judgment on the merits to which res judicata
applies).
The Sparlins’ contentions regarding the denial of discovery and alleged
violations of their civil rights are unpersuasive.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-17259