Case Name: Raphael RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-31
Citations: 700 F. App'x 702
Docket Number: No. 16-35706
Parties: Raphael RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 702–703

Head Matter:
Raphael RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-35706
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 23, 2017
Filed October 31, 2017
Raphael Russell, Pro Se
Marc Othello Bides, Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney, Everett, WA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: McKEOWN, 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
Raphael Russell appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his action alleging discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and fraud, We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We affirm.
In his opening brief, Russell fails to challenge the district court's order granting summary judgment and therefore he has waived any such challenge. 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."); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) ("We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant.,,,").
We reject as without merit Russell's contention that he was not properly served with documents because Russell consented to electronic service.
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) ("Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.").
Russell's motion to file a late reply brief (Docket Entry No. 19) is granted. The Clerk shall.file the reply brief at Docket Entry No. 18. All other pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 7, 20, 21, and 24) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.