Case Name: IN RE: Michael T. MEEHAN, Debtor. Michael T. Meehan, Appellant, v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC; Wells Fargo Bank, NA, As trustee for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-3, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-05
Citations: 659 F. App'x 437
Docket Number: No. 14-60078
Parties: IN RE: Michael T. MEEHAN, Debtor. Michael T. Meehan, Appellant, v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC; Wells Fargo Bank, NA, As trustee for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-3, Appellees.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 659
Pages: 437–438

Head Matter:
IN RE: Michael T. MEEHAN, Debtor. Michael T. Meehan, Appellant, v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC; Wells Fargo Bank, NA, As trustee for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-3, Appellees.
No. 14-60078
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 27, 2016
Filed October 05, 2016
Michael T. Meehan, Pro Se
Nichole Glowin, Esquire, Attorney, Kathryn Anne Moorer, Jonathan D. Fink, Attorney, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Appellees Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Wells Fargo Bank, NA
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
Michael T. Meehan appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's ("BAP") order affirming the bankruptcy court's order dismissing for lack standing Meehan's adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We affirm.
In his opening brief, Meehan fails to address how the BAP or the bankruptcy court erred in either ruling. As a result, Meehan has waived his appeal of the dismissal order. 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, 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.