
    Winston O’MALLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PNC BANK, N.A.; Select Portfolio Servicing, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-55700
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 17, 2017
    Winston O’Mally, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Jonathan D. Fink, Gwen Heather Ribar, Esquire, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appel-lee.
    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

Winston O’Mally appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) claims related to disputed information on his credit report. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 911 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed O’Mally’s FCRA claims because O’Mally cannot bring a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) as an individual, and he did not properly notify a consumer reporting agency of disputed information as required for a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s—2(b). See Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2009) (claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) can be brought only by federal or state agencies, and consumer’s dispute sent directly to a lender or other furnisher of information does not trigger duties under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)).

We do not consider O’Mally’s arguments regarding his Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim because O’Mally failed to replead it in his operative complaint. See Lacey, 693 F.3d at 928 (claims dismissed with leave to amend are waived if not replead); see also Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 F.3d 946, 973 n.14 (9th Cir. 2013) (plaintiffs claims were effectively abandoned when plaintiff did not replead them after district court dismissed with leave to amend).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending requests are denied.

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