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:T48b,MEMORANDUM Dale Curten appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action raising various federal foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm. We do not address Curten’s argument that he timely exercised his right of rescission under the Truth in Lending Act be cause Curten did not assert a rescission claim in his complaint and did not otherwise present this argument to the district court. See Hillis v. Heineman, 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir.2010) (“These arguments are raised for the first time on appeal, and because they were never argued before the district court, we deem them waived.”); see also Baccei v. United States, 632 F.3d 1140, 1149 (9th Cir.2011) (“[This Court] will not reframe an appeal to review what would be in effect a different case than the one decided by the district court.”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4b8,

MEMORANDUM

Dale Curten appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action raising various federal foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.

We do not address Curten’s argument that he timely exercised his right of rescission under the Truth in Lending Act be cause Curten did not assert a rescission claim in his complaint and did not otherwise present this argument to the district court. See Hillis v. Heineman, 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir.2010) (“These arguments are raised for the first time on appeal, and because they were never argued before the district court, we deem them waived.”); see also Baccei v. United States, 632 F.3d 1140, 1149 (9th Cir.2011) (“[This Court] will not reframe an appeal to review what would be in effect a different case than the one decided by the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.