Dennis Bruce Allums v. United States Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Investigation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENNIS BRUCE ALLUMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
BERKELEY; BAY AREA RAPID
TRANSIT; CITY OF BERKELEY,
Defendants.
No. 20-16928
D.C. No. 4:19-cv-04906-YGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
* 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
MAY 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16928
Dennis Bruce Allums appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging federal and state law
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
In his opening brief, Allums fails to address any of 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) (“[W]e will not
consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”);
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); see also 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 . . . .”).
Allums’s motion to dismiss under protest (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied as
moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --