Dustin A. Louie v. FOO, Correction Officer;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DUSTIN A. LOUIE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FOO, Correction Officer; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-35424
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00336-TOR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Former pretrial detainee Dustin A. Louie appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Louie fails to address how the district court erred in
* 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
APR 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35424
granting summary judgment for defendants Foo and Bliven, dismissing his claim
against Officer Frantz, or denying his post-judgment motion for reconsideration.
Louie has thus waived his challenge to the district court’s orders. 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 . . . .”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --