GREGORY K. OHLINGER; DEBRA L. OHLINGER, husband and wife v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; MARICOPOLY LLC, an Arizona limited liability company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY K. OHLINGER; DEBRA L.
OHLINGER, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
MARICOPOLY LLC, an Arizona limited
liability company,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-17443
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-04185-DJH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Gregory K. Ohlinger and Debra L. Ohlinger appeal from the district court’s
summary judgment in their quiet title action alleging unlawful seizure of property.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district
* 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
MAR 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-17443
court’s decision on cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian
Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on
Gregory Ohlinger’s claims challenging the IRS’s failure to provide notice of
seizure of the property to Debra Ohlinger, because Gregory Ohlinger lacked
standing to allege claims based on that failure. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578
U.S. 330, 339 (2016) (to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement, a plaintiff must
show that he “suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete
and particularized and actual or imminent” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
In his opening brief, appellants fail to challenge the district court’s dismissal
of Debra Ohlinger’s claims as barred by res judicata, as well as the finding that the
seizure of the property at issue was timely, and they have therefore waived any
such challenges. 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 . . . .”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --