NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 8 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RICHARD MALONEY, No. 12-17747
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01955-JAT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MARY BETH BLAIR,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Richard Maloney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his
diversity action alleging state law claims of negligence and breach of oral contract.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Berg v. Popham, 412 F.3d
*
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).
1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Maloney’s action because Maloney
failed to allege sufficient facts to show negligence or breach of contract. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements
of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”);
Gipson v. Kasey, 150 P.3d 228, 230 (Ariz. 2007) (elements of negligence claim
under Arizona law); Chartone, Inc. v. Bernini, 83 P.3d 1103, 1111 (Ariz. Ct. App.
2004) (elements of breach of contract claim under Arizona law).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-17747