Brent Evan Webster v. Division of Child Support

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRENT EVAN WEBSTER,
Appellant,
v.
DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT,
Appellee.
No. 20-35785
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00877-MO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Brent Evan Webster appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying any relief sought
in his “objections to no evidence hearings on April 30, 2020,” in his adversary
proceeding against the Oregon Division of Child Support. We have jurisdiction
* 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).
FILED
SEP 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-35785
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Webster fails to address how the district court erred by
dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As a result, Webster has waived his
challenge to the district court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052
(9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief
are deemed waived.”); 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 . . . .”).
We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Mano-Y
& M, Ltd. v. Field (In re Mortg. Store, Inc.), 773 F.3d 990, 998 (9th Cir. 2014);
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --