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:T52c,MEMORANDUM Bridgette A. Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her action alleging claims against the Arizona Medical Board. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)). We affirm. The district 'court properly dismissed without prejudice Smith’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Smith failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in her complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a)(1); Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing requirements for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332). We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T55e,

MEMORANDUM

Bridgette A. Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her action alleging claims against the Arizona Medical Board. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)). We affirm.

The district 'court properly dismissed without prejudice Smith’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Smith failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in her complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 , 1332(a)(1); Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing requirements for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332).

We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.

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