Timothy Joseph McIlwain v. JAMES NATHANIEL BROWN, AKA Jim Brown

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY JOSEPH MCILWAIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAMES NATHANIEL BROWN, AKA
Jim Brown,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-55424
D.C. No.
2:18-cv-05275-DMG-SK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 4, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Timothy McIlwain, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his diversity action against James Brown. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
AUG 6 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

McIlwain does not challenge—and has therefore waived review of—the
district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit on the independent, alternative ground that
he failed to timely oppose dismissal in violation of the Central District of
California’s local rules. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir.
2009) (declining to consider matters “not specifically and distinctly raised” in an
opening brief (citation omitted)); see also C.D. Cal. R. 7-9 (setting forth deadline
for opposition papers), 7-12 (providing that failure to timely oppose motion is
ground for granting motion); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995)
(“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”).
We likewise decline to review the district court’s denial of leave to amend
because McIlwain’s briefing on appeal lacks any argument on that issue. See Nev.
Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that a
pro se appellant waived issues not supported by argument in opening brief).
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --