Case Name: Harry Vern FOX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Henry RICHARDS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 357 F. App'x 903
Docket Number: No. 07-35678
Parties: Harry Vern FOX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Henry RICHARDS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 903–904

Head Matter:
Harry Vern FOX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Henry RICHARDS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-35678.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Harry Vern Fox, Steilacoom, WA, pro se.
Rachel E. Burnside, Esquire, Donna J. Hamilton, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Rob McKenna, Esquire, Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Harry Vern Fox, a civil detainee, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations arising from his confinement. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
By failing to identify the issues he sought to appeal in his opening brief, Fox has waived any arguments that the district court erred in disposing of his claims. See Entm't Research Group, Inc. v. Genesis Creative Group, Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir.1997) ("We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party's opening brief. We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim.") (citations omitted); Wilcox v. Comm'r, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n. 2 (9th Cir.1988) (explaining that arguments not raised on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned).
We have already considered and denied Fox's requests for appointment of counsel.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.