Peter C. Benedith v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, Ohio;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER C. BENEDITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, Ohio; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-55053
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-09629-JFW-PJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Peter C. Benedith appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his diversity action alleging various state law claims. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s
dismissal under its local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).
* 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 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-55053
We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Benedith’s claims
against defendants Case Western Reserve University and The MetroHealth
System, d/b/a MetroHealth Medical Center (improperly separately named and sued
as Department of Medicine Metro Health Medical Center and Metro Health
Medical Center) after Benedith failed to file an opposition to defendants’ motions
to dismiss as required by Local Rule 7-9. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 (providing that
“failure to file any required document” may be deemed consent to the granting or
denial of the motion); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53-54 (setting forth factors to be
considered before dismissing an action for failure to follow the local rules,
concluding that this court may review the record independently if the district court
does not make explicit findings to show its consideration of the factors, and noting
that pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure).
Because Benedith in his opening brief failed to raise specifically and
distinctly any argument regarding the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of the
remaining defendant, Cuyahoga County, Benedith has waived any challenge to the
dismissal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); 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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --