Case Name: Samuel Gardner ELDREDGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wale Olumuyiwa OLUKANMI, Physician Assistant, P.A., individual and official capacity, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-03
Citations: 698 F. App'x 511
Docket Number: No. 16-55188
Parties: Samuel Gardner ELDREDGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wale Olumuyiwa OLUKANMI, Physician Assistant, P.A., individual and official capacity, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 511–512

Head Matter:
Samuel Gardner ELDREDGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wale Olumuyiwa OLUKANMI, Physician Assistant, P.A., individual and official capacity, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-55188
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 26, 2017
Filed October 3, 2017
Samuel Gardner Eldredge, Pro Se
Elizabeth S. Angres, Assistant Chief Counsel, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
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
California state prisoner Samuel Gardner Eldredge appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Eldredge fails to address how the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his deliberate indifference claims and thus this is sue is waived. 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.... ").
We do not consider Eldredge's contentions regarding any alleged legal malpractice committed by the attorneys who represented him in the district court proceedings because such contentions are outside the scope of this appeal.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.