Barkin

MEMORANDUM **

Carol Rogers appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing her civil rights action, which alleged she was illegally evicted from her home. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), see Tyler v. Cisne-ros, 136 F.3d 603 , 607 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

Rogers’ contention that the district court erred by converting the motions to dismiss to motions for summary judgment without providing Rogers an opportunity to submit evidence lacks merit because a review of the record shows that the district court treated the motions as motions to dismiss.

To the extent Rogers contends the district court erred by misconstruing her 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim to be based on an allegation of an illegal age restriction, her contention lacks merit because the section 1981 claim was properly dismissed on the alternative ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations. See McDougal v. County of Imperial, 942 F.2d 668, 673 (9th Cir.1991) (limitations period for section 1981 claims is that state’s limitations period for personal injury claims); Perez v. Seevers, 869 F.2d 425, 426 (9th Cir.1989)…