
    Terry KERR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-35853
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 23, 2018
    Terry Kerr, Pro Se
    Tonn K. Petersen, Perkins Coie LLP, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Terry Kerr appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from the pending foreclosure of real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bourne Valley Court Tr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 832 F.3d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the state law claims Kerr raised on his own behalf because Kerr failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact supporting his contention that defendant breached its obligations to Kerr. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (party opposing summary judgment must come forward with probative evidence as to each element of the claim on which it bears the burden of proof).

We do not consider Kerr’s arguments as to the remaining claims made on behalf of third parties not named in this action because Kerr has no authority to appear as an attorney for other individuals. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997).

We do not consider’matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

To the extent Kerr requests permission to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 13), the request is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     