
    Pamela CHYBA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL, AKA JPMorgan Chase & Co., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-56082
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2016 
    
    Filed November 23, 2016
    Pamela Chyba, Pro Se
    Tyson Wayne Kovash, Attorney, Elizabeth H. Lindh, Joshua Byron Norton, Esquire, Attorney, Keesal, Young & Logan, Long Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: LEAVY, BERZON, 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

Pamela Chyba appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lyon v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 656 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2011) (motion for judgment on the pleadings); Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009) (motion to dismiss). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

Dismissal of Chyba’s FCRA claims was proper because Chyba failed to exhaust the claims before filing suit in district court as required by the Financial Institutions, Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”). See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d); Rundgren v. Wash. Mut. Bank, FA, 760 F.3d 1056, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2014) (no jurisdiction exists over claims not properly exhausted through FIRREA’s administrative process).

We reject as without merit Chyba’s contention that the district court’s denial of her motion for in camera review violated her due process rights.

Washington Mutual’s request for judicial notice, filed on March 30, 2015, is granted.

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