Case Name: Robert ABELL; Lisa J. Abell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Suse DODSON; Joe Ruiz, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-04
Citations: 669 F. App'x 447
Docket Number: No. 14-56716
Parties: Robert ABELL; Lisa J. Abell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Suse DODSON; Joe Ruiz, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 447–448

Head Matter:
Robert ABELL; Lisa J. Abell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Suse DODSON; Joe Ruiz, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-56716
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 27, 2016
Filed October 4, 2016
Robert Abell, Pro Se.
Lisa J. Abell, Pro Se.
Darwin R. Thomas, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Francesca Ugolini, Attorney, Gretchen M. Wolfmger, Attorney, Michael J. Haungs, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, 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
Robert Abell and Lisa J. Abell appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their action alleging forgery in connection with four tax lien notices. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.
The Abells fail to challenge the district court's dismissal of their action for failure to prosecute, and have therefore waived any such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) ("[0]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. .").
Even if the Abells had not waived their challenge, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Abells' action for failure to prosecute because the Abells failed to file an amended complaint despite receiving an extension of time to do so and being warned of the consequences of failing to file it. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.