*1 Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Charles Anthony Brooks appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking the return of lottery tickets and payment of alleged winnings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We *2 review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown , 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed appellant’s action because appellant failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was “(1) depriv[ed] of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev. , 649 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2011).

Because we affirm on the basis of failure to state a claim, we do not consider appellant’s contentions regarding the district court’s alternate basis for dismissal.

AFFIRMED.

2 16-17257

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

[**] Appellant consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

[***] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).