Case Name: Richard STANLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLEAR RECON CORPORATION; Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-21
Citations: 704 F. App'x 684
Docket Number: No. 16-55633
Parties: Richard STANLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLEAR RECON CORPORATION; Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 684–684

Head Matter:
Richard STANLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLEAR RECON CORPORATION; Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-55633
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 15, 2017
Filed November 21, 2017
Charles Thomas Marshall, Charles T. Marshall, Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Timothy R. Pomeroy, Aldridge Pite, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Clear Recon Corporation
Howard D. Hall, Attorney, Hall Hugue-nin LLP, Santa Ana, CA, Markus D. Self, Green & Hall, LLP, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Stanley’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Richard Stanley appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Stanley fails to address how the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his action for failure to comply with the local rules. As a result, Stanley has waived his challenge to the dismissal order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) ("On 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....").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.