22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T433,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. 36-3.24:T46a,

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.