Northon

MEMORANDUM **

Liysa Northon appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting defendants’ special motion to strike under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, Or.Rev.Stat. § 31.150. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

The district court did not err in granting defendants’ special motion because Northon failed to meet her burden of establishing that there was a probability that she would prevail on her claims. See id. at 986 (explaining that plaintiff has burden to “establish that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim by presenting substantial evidence to support a prima facie case”).

Specifically, Northon failed to show how any statements made in defendants’ book may have been defamatory. See id. at 989 (affirming dismissal of defamation claim because, inter alia, plaintiff failed to present substantial evidence to support a pri-ma facie case).

*907 Northon’s contention that the magistrate judge was impermissibly biased against her is unavailing because she never filed a recusal motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 . See United States v. Castro, 887…