Case Name: Kofi OBENG-AMPONSAH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-22
Citations: 677 F. App'x 423
Docket Number: No. 14-56369
Parties: Kofi OBENG-AMPONSAH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 677
Pages: 423–423

Head Matter:
Kofi OBENG-AMPONSAH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-56369
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 22, 2017
Kofi Obeng-Amponsah, Pro Se
Jenny Lee Merris, John M. Sorich, Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLC, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for oral argument set forth in the opening brief is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kofi Obeng-Amponsah appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging foreclosure related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, plaintiff fails to address how the district court erred in dismissing his action for failure to respond to defendant's motion to dismiss. As a result, he has waived his appeal of the dismissal order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) ("[O]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....").
Because we affirm the district court's dismissal for failure to respond, we do not consider plaintiffs challenge to the district court's interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.