*1 Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Vitaly E. Pilkin appeals pro se from the distr ict court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging copyright infringement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure *2 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. United States , 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2003) . We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Pilkin’s action because even if Pilkin ’s disputed narrative may be protected by copyright, the ideas and processes it describes are not. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (listing copyright protection exclusions, including any procedure, process, concept, or system, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work); Bikram ’ s Yoga Coll. of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC , 803 F.3d 1032, 1038 (9th Cir. 2015) ( “[C] opyright for a work describing how to perform a process does not extend to the process itself.” ).

AFFIRMED.

2 21-16346

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

[**] The parties 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).