William F. Holdner v. Richard A. Krietzberg;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM F. HOLDNER,
Appellant,
v.
RICHARD A. KRIETZBERG; et al.,
Appellees.
No. 20-35565
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00307-MO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
William F. Holdner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing in part and affirming in part his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s
order dismissing claims in his adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 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
OCT 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-35565
In his opening brief, Holdner fails to address how the district court erred by
dismissing Holdner’s appeal from the bankruptcy court’s interlocutory orders, or
affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his claims. As a result, Holdner
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 . . . .”).
Holdner’s motion to correct the caption (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied.
No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --