Case Name: Gerald J. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. L. MONTGOMEREY, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-17
Citations: 693 F. App'x 718
Docket Number: No. 16-56319
Parties: Gerald J. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. L. MONTGOMEREY, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges,
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 718–718

Head Matter:
Gerald J. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. L. MONTGOMEREY, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-56319
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 2017
Filed July 17, 2017
Gerald J. Wilson, Pro Se
Sylvie Snyder, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA—Office of the Attorney General (San Diego), San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges,
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gerald J. Wilson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm,
In his opening brief, Wilson failed to challenge any of the district court's grounds for dismissal of the operative complaint, and therefore Wilson waived any such challenge. 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."); Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) ("[Arguments not raised by a party m its opening brief are deemed waived.").
We reject as without merit Wilson's contentions regarding his alleged failure to receive the magistrate's report and recommendation.
Wilson's request for appointment of counsel and request for sanctions, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, are denied. Wilson's request for in forma pauperis status, set forth in his reply brief, is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.