Anna M. Womack v. Cincinnati Bell; American Express

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANNA M. WOMACK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CINCINNATI BELL; AMERICAN
EXPRESS,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16051
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05765-MTL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Anna M. Womack appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII
and state law 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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16051
In her opening brief, Womack fails to address the district court’s grounds for
dismissal and has therefore waived her challenge to the district court’s judgment.
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 . . . .”).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts
not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
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).
Womack’s motion for default judgment (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --