Court Opinion

ID: 6343950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-05-25 20:00:47.120714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:44:01.135197
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 25 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS BRUCE ALLUMS,                            No. 20-16928

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:19-cv-04906-YGR

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION,

                Defendants-Appellees,

and

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
BERKELEY; BAY AREA RAPID
TRANSIT; CITY OF BERKELEY,

                Defendants.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted May 17, 2022**

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

      *
             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).
        Dennis Bruce Allums appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging federal and state law

claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627

F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

        In his opening brief, Allums fails to address any of the grounds for dismissal

and has therefore waived his challenge to the district court’s order. 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 . . . .”).

        Allums’s motion to dismiss under protest (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied as

moot.

        AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                   20-16928