*1 Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Rapheal G. Russell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
*2 The district court properly dismissed Russell’s action because Russell failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief and failed to oppose defendants’ motions to dismiss. See id. at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); s ee also W.D. Wash. R. 7(b)(2) (the court may deem a failure to oppose a motion as an admission that the motion has merit).
We do not consider arguments not raised in the opening brief. See Padgett
v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as without merit Russell’s argument related to the district court’s failure to change the trial date.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-35076
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).