Case Name: Eric Wilton BURTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. FOX; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-05
Citations: 698 F. App'x 519
Docket Number: No. 15-56756
Parties: Eric Wilton BURTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. FOX; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 519–520

Head Matter:
Eric Wilton BURTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. FOX; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-56756
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 26, 2017
Filed October 5, 2017
Eric Wilton Burton, Stockton, CA, pro se.
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. 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
Eric Wilton Burton, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to pay the filing fee after denying Burton's motion to proceed in for-ma pauperis ("IFP") because he had three strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
By failing to address in his opening brief how the district court erred, Burton has waived his challenge to the district court s determinations that Burton has three or more prior actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that Burton has not alleged imminent danger of serious physical injury. 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, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim ."); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.