Case ID: f-appx_386/html/0598-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Clarence A. GIPBSIN, aka Clarence Gibson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALKER, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-15362.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed July 2, 2010.
    Clarence A. Gipbsin, Susanville, CA, pro se.
    Monica N. Anderson, Esquire, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, April Hiroshima Gatling, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: HUG, BEEZER and HALL, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Prisoner Clarence Gipbsin appeals pro se the district court’s judgment in favor of defendant Walker following a jury trial in Gipbsin’s action alleging excessive use of force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gipbsin has waived the claims he raises on appeal because he does not show that he raised them before the district court, nor does he support them with any analysis, legal argument, citation to authority, or record evidence. To preserve an issue for appeal, the appellant must show that he raised that issue before the district court. Tennison v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir.2001). The appellant must also do more in his briefing than summarily assert that the district court erred. Sekiya v. Gates, 508 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir.2007); Indep. Towers of Wash. v. State of Wash., 350 F.3d 925, 929-30 (9th Cir.2003).

Here, Gipbsin makes no showing that he raised any of his appellate issues at trial. Nor does he make any assertions of district court error that are specific enough for us to review. The issues he raises on appeal are therefore waived.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.