Case Name: Larry Noble MAYS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 358 F. App'x 944
Docket Number: No. 08-55635
Parties: Larry Noble MAYS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 944–945

Head Matter:
Larry Noble MAYS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-55635.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Larry Noble Mays, Inglewood, CA, pro se.
Janet Bogigian, Esquire, Assistant City, Blithe Smith Bock, Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, 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
Larry Noble Mays appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir.1984), and we affirm.
Because Mays does not raise any arguments regarding the district court's basis for dismissal, he waives any such challenge on appeal. See Greenwood v. FAA, 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 .") (internal citation omitted). Mays's contentions regarding the merits of his underlying claims are unavailing. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1385 (9th Cir.1996) (stating that a dismissal for failure to prosecute "prevents disposition on the merits").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.