Case Name: Thomas J. COFFELT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keith YORDY, Warden; Davidson, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-15
Citations: 695 F. App'x 303
Docket Number: No. 16-36078
Parties: Thomas J. COFFELT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keith YORDY, Warden; Davidson, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 303–304

Head Matter:
Thomas J. COFFELT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keith YORDY, Warden; Davidson, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-36078
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 9, 2017
Filed August 15, 2017
Thomas J. Coffelt, Pro Se
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, 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
Idaho state prisoner Thomas J. Coffelt appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims and claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
In his opening brief, Coffelt fails to address any of the grounds for dismissal and has therefore waived his challenge to 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); see also 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....").
We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.