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:T43d,MEMORANDUM Charles Anthony Brooks appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking the return of lottery tickets and payment of alleged winnings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s action because appellant failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was “(1) deprived] of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143 , 1149 (9th Cir. 2011). Because we affirm on the basis of failure to state a claim, we do not consider appellant’s contentions regarding the district court’s alternate basis for dismissal. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T46f,

MEMORANDUM

Charles Anthony Brooks appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking the return of lottery tickets and payment of alleged winnings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed appellant’s action because appellant failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was “(1) deprived] of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143 , 1149 (9th Cir. 2011).

Because we affirm on the basis of failure to state a claim, we do not consider appellant’s contentions regarding the district court’s alternate basis for dismissal.

AFFIRMED.

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