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:T46a,MEMORANDUM David Joyner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. King v. California, 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Joyner’s claims for the reasons stated in its order entered on July 26, 2010. Contrary to Joyner’s contention, the district court properly applied federal pleading standards following the removal of the action from state court based on diversity jurisdiction. See Vess v. Cibar-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 , 1102 (9th Cir.2003) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply irrespective of the source of subject matter jurisdiction, and irrespective of whether the substantive law at issue is state or federal.”). Joyner’s remaining contentions, including those concerning the funding and securitization of the loan and standing to bring non-judicial foreclosure, are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4a1,

MEMORANDUM

David Joyner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. King v. California, 784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Joyner’s claims for the reasons stated in its order entered on July 26, 2010.

Contrary to Joyner’s contention, the district court properly applied federal pleading standards following the removal of the action from state court based on diversity jurisdiction. See Vess v. Cibar-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 , 1102 (9th Cir.2003) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply irrespective of the source of subject matter jurisdiction, and irrespective of whether the substantive law at issue is state or federal.”).

Joyner’s remaining contentions, including those concerning the funding and securitization of the loan and standing to bring non-judicial foreclosure, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

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