Roderick Demmings v. Pacific Maritime Association , 694 F. App'x 514 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 18 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    RODERICK DEMMINGS,                              No. 16-35053
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:13-cv-05737-RAJ
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION; et
    al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted July 11, 2017**
    Before:      CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    Roderick Demmings appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his
    employment action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his requests
    for reinstatement in 2013. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Demmings’s request for oral
    argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
    review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. Ramirez v. Galaza,
    
    334 F.3d 850
    , 859 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Demmings’s
    action without granting Demmings leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint
    because further amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
    Loans, Inc., 
    656 F.3d 1034
    , 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that dismissal without
    leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile); Chodos v. West
    Publ’g Co., 
    292 F.3d 992
    , 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen a district court has
    already granted a plaintiff leave to amend, its discretion in deciding subsequent
    motions to amend is particularly broad.” (citation and internal quotation marks
    omitted)).
    Because Demmings failed to make any arguments challenging the bases for
    the district court’s orders dismissing his claims, Demmings has waived any
    challenge to the dismissal of his claims. See Smith v. Marsh, 
    194 F.3d 1045
    , 1052
    (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief
    are deemed waived.”).
    We do not consider facts and allegations that Demmings raises for the first
    time on appeal. See Ramirez, 
    334 F.3d at
    859 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[A] party may
    not raise new issues of fact on appeal after declining to present those facts before
    the trial court.”).
    2                                    16-35053
    We reject as without merit Demmings’s contentions that the district court
    should have granted his request for an extension where the record reflects that the
    district court granted five extensions throughout the action.
    All pending motions and requests are denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                  16-35053