Case Name: Lewis Vincent HUGHES, in propria persona, Tax Parcel ID 665250-0040 and 665250-0030; Dean A. Arp, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William Raymond HINESLY, individually and severally; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-25
Citations: 690 F. App'x 470
Docket Number: No. 16-35193
Parties: Lewis Vincent HUGHES, in propria persona, Tax Parcel ID 665250-0040 and 665250-0030; Dean A. Arp, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William Raymond HINESLY, individually and severally; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 470–471

Head Matter:
Lewis Vincent HUGHES, in propria persona, Tax Parcel ID 665250-0040 and 665250-0030; Dean A. Arp, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William Raymond HINESLY, individually and severally; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-35193
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 25, 2017
Lewis Vincent Hughes, Pro Se
Dean A. Arp, Pro Se'
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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
Lewis Vincent Hughes and Dean A. Arp appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
Because Hughes and Arp have failed to address on appeal how the district court erred in dismissing their action, they have waived their challenge to the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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.").
We reject as meritless Hughes and Arp's contention regarding the authority of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.