
    Donessa L. HORSEWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LSI TITLE COMPANY OF OREGON, LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-35094.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 25, 2014.
    
    Filed July 2, 2014.
    Donessa L. Horsewood, pro se.
    Nicolas A. Daluiso, Joe Solseng, Robinson Tait, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Donessa L. Horsewood appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir.2011). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of Horsewood’s wrongful foreclosure claim was proper because Horse-wood does not dispute that she received notice of the trustee’s sale and, therefore, her interest in the property was “foreclosed and terminated” by the trustee’s sale. Or.Rev.Stat. § 86.797(1) (formerly § 86.770(1)); see also NW Property Wholesalers, LLC v. Spitz, 252 Or.App. 29, 287 P.3d 1106, 1109-10 (2012) (reviewing statutory framework and stating that a trust deed foreclosure sale terminates the interest of those who received proper notice).

Dismissal of Horsewood’s claim for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was proper because Horsewood did not allege facts showing that defendants fell within the statutory definition of “debt collector.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (defining “debt collector”); Schlegel v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 720 F.3d 1204, 1209 (9th Cir.2013) (plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to show that mortgagee was a “debt collector” under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)).

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