Jesse Graham v. Taylor Swift, an individual

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSE GRAHAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TAYLOR SWIFT, an individual; BIG
MACHINE LABEL GROUP LLC, a limited
liability company; UNIVERSAL MUSIC
GROUP, INC., a California Corporation;
KOBALT MUSIC PUBLISHING
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-55419
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-07000-MWF-GJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jesse Graham appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
copyright action. 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
FEB 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-55419
In his opening brief, Graham failed to address the grounds for dismissal and
has therefore waived his challenge to the district court’s order. See Indep. Towers
of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “we
will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening
brief”); Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that
arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are deemed waived); see also
Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting that “[w]e will not
manufacture arguments for an appellant . . . .”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --