Kachavos

MEMORANDUM **

Valerija Kachavos appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her action alleging injury from her employment with Saint Matthew’s Churches. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Davis v. Yageo Corp., 481 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because Ka-chavos lacked standing to bring an action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. See Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451, 457 , 126 S.Ct. 1991 , 164 L.Ed.2d 720 (2006) (explaining that a plaintiff who was not a direct victim of alleged mail fraud normally fails to show that her injury was proximately caused by defendant’s conduct, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c)); Canyon County v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 519 F.3d 969, 983 (9th Cir.2008) (affirming judgment for defendant because plaintiff lacked standing under section 1964(c)).

We decline to review dismissal of Kacha-vos’s state law claims. See Indep. Towers of Washington v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925 , 929 (9th Cir.2003) (declining to review arguments not adequately developed in the briefs on…