Court Opinion

ID: 5125620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-11-12 21:00:43.949089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:54.499028
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 12 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ISAIAH HOOVER,                                  No.    20-16088

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:18-cv-03314-JAT

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY;
et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted November 8, 2021**

Before:      CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

      Isaiah Hoover appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his employment as a

student driver. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      In his opening brief, Hoover fails to address the grounds for dismissal and

has therefore waived his challenge to the district court’s orders. See Indep. Towers

of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not

consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”);

Acosta–Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by

argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are 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[.]”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                  20-16088