MEMORANDUM Lawrence James Saccato appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm. The district court properly concluded that 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(
a) did not create a private right of action and, thus, Saccato failed to state a claim under this section. See Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1162 (9th Cir.2009) (holding that 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(
a) does not create a private right of action). Saccato’s argument that the 2010 Federal Trade Commission regulations create a private cause of action is unpersuasive. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(e) (excluding violations of “subsection (
a) of this section, including any regulations issued thereunder” from the FCRA’s private enforcement provisions). The district court properly dismissed Saccato’s action to the extent that it alleged a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(
b) because Saccato failed to allege that a credit reporting agency (“CRA”) had notified defendant of his dispute. See Gor-man, 584 F.3d at 1154 (“[The duties under subsection (b) ] arise only after the fur-nisher receives notice of dispute from a CRA; notice of a dispute received directly from the consumer does not trigger fur-nishers’ duties under subsection (b).”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.