
    Dennis Andrew BALL, personally and as Benefactor of the Eleanor R. Ball IrreLvg Trust 05/10/01, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PEORIA, Both generally and severally and City of Peoria Police Department, Both generally and severally, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-17184.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 28, 2011.
    Dennis Andrew Ball, pro se.
    Cynthia Odom, Esquire, Michael Shawn Wawro, Esquire, Office of The City Attorney, Peoria, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Lawrence O. Anderson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00635-LOA.
    Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, and therefore denies Ball’s request. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dennis Andrew Ball appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action against the City of Peoria and its police department. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Ball’s state law claims were barred by Arizona’s Public Entity Notice of Claim Statute because he failed to file a notice of claim containing “facts sufficient to permit the public entity or public employee to understand the basis upon which liability is claimed.” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-821.01(A); see also Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97 v. Houser, 214 Ariz. 293, 152 P.3d 490, 492 (2007) (requiring strict compliance with the statutory requirements of § 12-821.01(A)).

Ball’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted on December 20, 2010.

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