
    Grant W. RICHARDS; Julie L. Richards, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES; Calwestern Reconveyance Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-35838.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 4, 2013.
    Grant W. Richards, Baker City, OR, pro se.
    David Weibel, Bishop White & Marshall, PS, Seattle, WA, Eric A. Marshack, Rochelle L. Stanford, Pite Duncan, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Grant W. and Julie L. Richards (“plaintiffs”) appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action arising out of foreclosure proceedings as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because of the adverse judgment in plaintiffs’ prior Oregon state court action involving the same defendants and factual transaction. See id. (federal courts must apply state law regarding res judicata to state court judgments); Rennie v. Freeway Transp., 294 Or. 319, 656 P.2d 919, 921 (1982) (en banc) (under Oregon law, an action is precluded if it involves the same defendant and factual transaction as a prior action, seeks remedies additional or alternative to those sought earlier, and raises claims that could have been joined in the first action).

Plaintiffs’ request that we vacate the Oregon state court judgment is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir.2010) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits lower federal courts from reviewing state court decisions).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     