John Jay Powers v. Charles Keeton;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN JAY POWERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHARLES KEETON; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15117
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01396-ROS-DMF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
John Jay Powers appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging a procedural due process claim. 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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15117
In his opening brief, Powers fails to address the grounds for summary
judgment on his procedural due process claim. Therefore, Powers has waived his
challenge to the district court’s disposition of this claim. See 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 . . . .”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Powers’s
complaint without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to
amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --