Case Name: In the MATTER OF: Shmuel ERDE, Debtor, Shmuel Erde, Appellant, v. John B. Taylor, Esq., Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-23
Citations: 653 F. App'x 508
Docket Number: No. 14-55536
Parties: In the MATTER OF: Shmuel ERDE, Debtor, Shmuel Erde, Appellant, v. John B. Taylor, Esq., Appellee.
Judges: Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 653
Pages: 508–509

Head Matter:
In the MATTER OF: Shmuel ERDE, Debtor, Shmuel Erde, Appellant, v. John B. Taylor, Esq., Appellee.
No. 14-55536
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2016
FILED June 23, 2016
Shmuel Erde, Pro Se
John B. Taylor, Law Offices of John B. Taylor, Santa Ana, CA, for Appellee
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Shmuel Erde appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his adversary action alleging fraud, fraud upon the court, violation of court order, and breach of professional and ethical duties. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review independently . the bankruptcy court's decision without deference to the district court's determination. Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
Erde has failed to address in his opening brief any of the claims alleged in his complaint or the 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).
Wé do not consider Erde's challenges to the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction in a separate action because those issues are outside the scope of this appeal.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.