
    Niki-Alexander SHETTY, FKA Satish Shetty, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON as Trustee FOR the CERTIFICATE-HOLDERS CWALT, INC. ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005-43 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-43, a fictitious entity formerly known as The Bank of New York; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    
      No. 17-55342
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 26, 2017
    Niki-Alexander Shetty, Pro Se
    Joshua Ryan Hernandez, Esquire, Attorney, Joan Carol Spaeder-Younkin, Esquire, Attorney, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Niki-Alexander Shetty, FKA Satish Shetty, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging pre-foreclosure claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Shett/s action was proper because Shetty failed to allege facts sufficient to “state a claim that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (explaining that “[a] pleading that offers labels and conclusions” or “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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

Appellee The Bank of New York Mellon’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 15) is denied as unnecessary.

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