Toby M. Semick v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TOBY M. SEMICK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16090
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02462-JAM-EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Toby M. Semick appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal
claims. 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).
FILED
APR 17 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16090
In his opening brief, Semick fails to address how the district court erred by
dismissing his action for failing to prosecute following the district court’s order to
file an amended complaint. As a result, Semick 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 . . . .”).
Semick’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --