Larry A. O’lexey v. WASHINGTON STATE US SENATORS OFFICE; PATTY MURRAY, Washington State US Senator

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY A. O’LEXEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON STATE US SENATORS
OFFICE; PATTY MURRAY, Washington
State US Senator,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-35047
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00289-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Stanley Allen Bastian, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Larry A. O’Lexey appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his action arising from the denial of his claim for long-term disability benefits. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under
* 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).
FILED
MAY 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35047
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341
(9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed O’Lexey’s action because O’Lexey
failed to allege facts sufficient to state any cognizable claim for relief. See
Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2008)
(“A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal may be based on either a lack of a cognizable legal
theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.”
(citation and internal quotations marks omitted)); see also Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-
42 (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present
factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record O’Lexey’s contention that the
district court violated his due process rights.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --