
    Patricia BAUERLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patricia BAUERLE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-15544
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 21, 2017
    Patricia Bauerle, Pro Se
    Sidney F. Wolitzky, Law Offices of Sidney F. Wolitzky, Tueson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee Gregory A. Smith
    Christopher M. Pastore, Esquire, Ogle-tree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee International Business Machines Corporation
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Patricia B.auerle appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim, Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bauerle’s action as frivolous because Bauerle’s claims lacked any arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (a “frivolous” claim lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact; the “term ‘frivolous’ ... embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation”); Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988) (court may sua sponte dismiss for failure to state a claim without notice or an opportunity to respond where plaintiff cannot possibly win relief).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in . dismissing Bauerle’s third amended complaint without leave to amend because further amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is' proper when amendment would be futile).

We do not consider allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Bauerle’s motion to file a supplemental reply brief (Docket Entry No. 21) is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No.' 22.

International Business Machines Corporation’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, set forth in its answering brief, is denied without prejudice to filing a separate motion for attorney’s fees and bill of costs.

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