
    Samuel SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GMAC MORTGAGE CO., Affiliates and subscribers, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-16677.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 25, 2011.
    Samuel Smith, Stockton, CA, pro se.
    Joshua E. Whitehair, Severson & Wer-son, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Samuel Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (“HOEPA”) claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. King v. California, 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir.1986). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Smith’s TILA claim seeking damages as time-barred because Smith did not file his action within one year of the alleged violations. See 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (an action for damages must be brought within one year of the alleged violation).

The district court properly dismissed Smith’s TILA claim seeking rescission because the loan at issue was a “residential mortgage transaction” and therefore could not be rescinded under TILA. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(e)(1) (the right of rescission does not apply to a “residential mortgage transaction”); id. § 1602(x) (defining a “residential mortgage transaction”). Likewise, the district court properly dismissed Smith’s HOEPA claim. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1639, 1602(bb)(l) (exempting “residential mortgage transactions” from the requirements of HOEPA).

Smith’s remaining contentions, including those concerning fraud, are unpersuasive.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).

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