Case Name: George C. CHATMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-23
Citations: 671 F. App'x 427
Docket Number: No. 14-56794
Parties: George C. CHATMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 427–427

Head Matter:
George C. CHATMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-56794
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 16, 2016
Filed November 23, 2016
George C. Chatman, Pro Se.
Benjamin L. Tompkins, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Richard Caldar-one, Attorney, Robert William Metzler, Supervisory Attorney, DOJ—U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, 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
George C. Chatman appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights and committed various torts against him by instructing him to file tax returns for the years 2010, 2011, and 2012. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Chatman failed to address any of the district court's grounds for dismissal, and has therefore waived his appeal of 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).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.