Case Name: Donavon HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-05
Citations: 691 F. App'x 897
Docket Number: No. 16-15935
Parties: Donavon HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 897–898

Head Matter:
Donavon HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15935
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2017
Filed July 5, 2017
Donavon Henderson, Pro Se
Bryan L. Hawkins, Stoel Rives LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Select Portfolio Services, Inc., U.S. Bank
Leslie M. Werlin, Esquire, McGuire-Woods LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Alison Valerie Lippa, Attorney, McGuireWoods LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appel-lee Bank of America, N.A.
Before: PAEZ, BEA, 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
Donavon Henderson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute his action alleging federal claims arising out of a residential home loan transaction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
We do not consider the merits of the district court's dismissal of Henderson's action because Henderson does not raise any argument in his opening brief concerning the district court's dismissal of his action. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) ("[Arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived."); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) ("We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare, assertion does not preserve a claim....").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.