NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENNIS RAYBOULD, No. 20-35557
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:19-cv-01364-AA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Dennis Raybould appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
*
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).
Procedure 12(b)(6). Sheppard v. David Evans & Assoc., 694 F.3d 1045, 1048 (9th
Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Raybould’s Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act claim against defendant Rushmore Loan Management Service
because Raybould failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Barnes v.
Routh Crabtree Olsen PC, 963 F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 2020) (“A judicial
foreclosure proceeding is not a form of debt collection when the proceeding does
not include a request for a deficiency judgment or some other effort to recovery the
remaining debt.”); see also Or. Rev. Stat. § 86.797(2) (prohibiting action for
deficiency after judicial foreclosure).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing its scheduling order,
case management order, or orders granting extensions of time. See Johnson v.
Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court has
broad discretion to manage its docket).
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).
2 20-35557
We do not consider Raybould’s contention regarding dismissal of his prior
action, Raybould v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., which was summarily affirmed
in Appeal No. 15-35158.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-35557
Dennis Raybould v. Rushmore Loan Management
Combined Opinion