16-36078•Thomas J. Coffelt v. KEITH YORDY, Warden; DAVIDSON
16-36078Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit15 de ago. de 2017
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS J. COFFELT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KEITH YORDY, Warden; DAVIDSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-36078
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00190-CWD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Candy W. Dale, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted August 9, 2017***
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Idaho state prisoner Thomas J. Coffelt appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims and
claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”). We have
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** Coffelt consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 16-36078
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we
affirm.
In his opening brief, Coffelt 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 . . . .”).
We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.