Bruce Warren Creamer v. City of Tulare, a Municipal Corporation and a Common Law City;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRUCE WARREN CREAMER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF TULARE, a Municipal
Corporation and a Common Law City; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-17220
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00916-DAD-EPG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Bruce Warren Creamer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state law
violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
Because Creamer has failed to address on appeal how the district court erred
* 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
JUL 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-17220
in dismissing his action, Creamer has waived his challenge to the district court’s
dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th
Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are
deemed waived.”).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider issues raised by Creamer in his brief that are not
supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.
1992).
We reject as unsupported by the record Creamer’s contentions of judicial
bias.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --