Brian K. Carter v. Oath Holdings, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN K. CARTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
OATH HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-17318
D.C. No. 4:17-cv-07086-KAW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted December 11, 2019***
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Brian K. Carter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging trademark infringement claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties 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
DEC 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-17318
The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Carter’s filing
challenging defendant’s correction in its notice of removal of the proper named
defendant, or by denying Carter’s motions for “award of compensation.” See
Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting
forth standard of review and explaining that a district court has inherent power to
control its docket, including power to strike items from the docket).
In his opening brief, Carter fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any
challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his action. 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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --