United States v. 2021-09-16 | 20-35905 | In re: BRENT WEBSTER | nonprecedential | memorandum…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: BRENT EVAN WEBSTER,
______________________________
BRENT EVAN WEBSTER,
Petitioner-Appellant.
No. 20-35905
D.C. No. 3:20-mc-00903
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 order imposing a
prefiling review restriction on Webster’s filings. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Webster fails to address how the district court erred by
imposing the prefiling review restriction on frivolous or repetitive filings. As a
result, Webster has waived his challenge to the district court’s order. See Smith v.
* 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 20-35905
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 --