Matthew Lloyd Heldris, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant-appellee, 133 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 1997)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Matthew Lloyd Heldris appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his petition for writ of mandate, requesting payment of worker's compensation benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal, Int'l Ambassador Programs, Inc. v. Archexpo, 68 F.3d 337 (9th Cir. 1995), and we affirm.

Heldris contends that the district court improperly dismissed his petition on the grounds of res judicata. Because Heldris brought a virtually identical suit seeking the same relief in a previous action, the district court properly dismissed the petition and we affirm. for the reasons stated in the district court's February 14, 1997 order. See C.D. Anderson & Co., Inc. v. Lemos, 832 F.2d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing McClain v. Apodaca, 793 F.2d 1031, 1033 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Further, the district court did not deprive Heldris due process by deciding the motion to dismiss without holding oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78 ("To expedite its business, the court may make provision by rule or order for the submission and determination of motions without oral hearing upon brief written statements of reasons in support and opposition.")

Heldris' unopposed motion to add exhibits is granted. See Fed. R. App. P. 27.

AFFIRMED.