Theodore Stevens v. Sheryl Foster;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THEODORE STEVENS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SHERYL FOSTER; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-15757
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00368-MMD-
VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Theodore Stevens appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
claims arising from his transfer and placement in administrative segregation. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the
* 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 17 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-15757
denial of leave to amend. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d
1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Stevens leave to
file a second amended complaint because further amendment would be futile. See
id. (dismissal without leave to amend is proper “where a plaintiff’s proposed
amendments would fail to cure the pleading deficiencies and amendment would be
futile”); see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995) (concluding that
“discipline in segregated confinement did not present the type of atypical,
significant deprivation” required to create a liberty interest).
In his opening brief, Stevens failed to challenge the district court’s grant of
summary judgment for defendants, and therefore Stevens waived any challenge to
summary judgment. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999)
(“[A]rguments 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, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --