Gary Cecil v. Daniel Paramo
Gary CECIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel PARAMO, Warden; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- Area
- other
- Panel
- William T. Wallace (author), Raymond C. Fisher, Edward Leavy
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARY CECIL, No. 16-55004 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-02137-GPC- NLS v. DANIEL PARAMO, Warden; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Gary Cecil, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and access-to-court claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Cecil failed to address any of the grounds for dismissal, * 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). and has therefore waived his appeal of 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).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-55004