Raymond Baldwin v. Barbie Doe , 713 F. App'x 595 ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND BALDWIN, Private Attorney No. 17-35382
General, PAG; Class,
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00109-PK
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
BARBIE DOE, (Last name unknown),
Clackamas County Deputy Clerk; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Baldwin appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
*
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).
In his opening brief, Baldwin fails to address the district court’s grounds for
dismissal and has therefore waived his challenge to the district court’s order. See
Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e
will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening
brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not
supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived); see also
Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture
arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .”).
We reject as without merit Baldwin’s contention that the district court erred
by failing to allow oral argument.
We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-35382