Krieg

MEMORANDUM ** AND ORDER

Harold Brian Krieg appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 , and various state-law claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . After de novo review, Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin. Inc., 430 F.3d 1078, 1079 (9th Cir.2005), we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Krieg’s FCRA claims because there is no private right of action for violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a), the section of the statute Krieg invokes. See Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., 282 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir.2002). Even if Krieg’s amended complaint is construed as an attempt to assert the private right of action provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), it fails to state a claim because Krieg did not allege that he gave proper notice to any credit reporting agency that he disputed the information furnished by defendant Allstate, that Allstate failed to investigate the dispute, or that Allstate continued to provide inaccurate information to any credit reporting agency. See Nelson, 282 F.3d at 1060 (explaining that the FCRA requires consumer to “filter” his…