Case Name: Sharnell Marie HORNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANGELINE'S YWCA, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-23
Citations: 181 F. App'x 699
Docket Number: No. 05-35601
Parties: Sharnell Marie HORNE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ANGELINE’S YWCA, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 181
Pages: 699–699

Head Matter:
Sharnell Marie HORNE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ANGELINE’S YWCA, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 05-35601.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2006.
Filed May 23, 2006.
Sharnell Marie Horne, Seattle, WA, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-00292-RSM.
Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sharnell Marie Horne appeals pro se from district court's entry of default judgment and order that defendant Angeline's YWCA pay Horne $100. We dismiss the appeal.
Horne's brief fails to comply with Fed. R.App. P. 28. N/S Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 127 F.3d 1145, 1146 (9th Cir.1997). Most importantly, Horne fails to identify the specific contentions she is raising on appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). As such, we cannot tell what challenge Horne is making to the judgment in her favor, and we conclude Horne has waived any potential contentions on appeal. See Greenwood v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir.1994) ('We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party's opening brief. We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant.") (citations omitted). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See O'Brien v. O'Brien (In re O'Brien), 312 F.3d 1135, 1136 (9th Cir.2002) (order) ("failure to comply with Rule 28, by itself, is sufficient ground to justify dismissal of an appeal").
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.