
    Pamfila R. CAMANGIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, and Internal Revenue Service, Defendant.
    No. 10-56223.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 30, 2012.
    Pamfila R. Camangian, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    
      Gavin Greene, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Curtis Clarence Pett, Esquire, Bruce R. Ellisen, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pamfila Camangian appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her action for tax refunds and damages under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7422 and 7433. We review de novo. Carver v. Holder, 606 F.3d 690, 695 (9th Cir.2010) (summary judgment); BNSF Ry. Co. v. O’Dea, 572 F.3d 785, 787 (9th Cir.2009) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Camangian’s refunds claim because she failed to raise a genuine dispute as to whether the overpayments were applied to her back taxes before the automatic stay was lifted. See Carver, 606 F.3d at 695 (summary judgment is proper where “ ‘the pleadings and supporting documents ... show that there is no genuine issue as to a material fact’ ” (citation omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Camangian’s damages claim for lack of jurisdiction because, although given repeated opportunities, Camangian did not allege that she had exhausted her administrative remedies with respect to the damages claim. See 26 U.S.C. § 7433(d)(1); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d 1375, 1377 (9th Cir.1992) (courts lack jurisdiction to hear actions for damages under § 7433 when plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies).

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