Case ID: f-appx_639/html/0439-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Barry Northcross PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. ULIBARI; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-15131.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2016.
    
    Filed April 20, 2016.
    Barry Northcross Patterson, Florence, AZ, pro se.
    Michael E. Gottfried, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Barry Northcross Patterson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment and dismissal order .in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir.2009) (summary judgment); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.

The district court dismissed Patterson’s First Amendment access-to-courts and mail-related claims for failure to state a claim. The court then granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Patterson’s remaining First Amendment free exercise claim because Patterson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. In his opening brief, Patterson fails to address how the district court erred in either order.' As a result, Patterson has waived his appeal of the dismissal and summary judgment orders. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) (“[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed 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 unsupported by the record Patterson’s contention that the district court was biased.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid-, ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.