
    Lindsay JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, doing business as Washington Mutual, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-35258.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 11, 2013.
    Lindsay Jenkins, Forest Hills, NY, pro se.
    Ann T. Marshall, Bishop, White, Marshall & Weibel, P.S., Seattle, WA, Roy T.J. Stegena, I, Esquire, Bishop White & Marshall, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00052-TSZ.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lindsay Jenkins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Jenkins’ action because, under the Purchase and Assumption Agreement between JP Morgan Chase Bank (“Chase”) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), Chase did not assume any liability associated with borrower claims against Washington Mutual. See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2)(G)(i)(II) (authorizing FDIC to transfer “any asset or liability” of the failed bank); see also W. Park Assocs. v. Butterfield Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 60 F.3d 1452, 1458 (9th Cir.1995) (recognizing FDIC’s authority to limit liabilities assumed by a purchasing bank through a Purchase and Assumption Agreement).

We do not consider Jenkins’ allegations regarding Chase’s alleged misconduct after it acquired Washington Mutual’s assets because Jenkins failed to raise them properly in the district court. See Palmer v. IRS, 116 F.3d 1309, 1312-13 (9th Cir.1997).

Jenkins’ request for judicial notice is denied.

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