WILLIAM SHARKOZY, AKA Bill Sharkozy v. CITY OF PAYSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Payson, Arizona

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM SHARKOZY, AKA Bill
Sharkozy,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF PAYSON POLICE
DEPARTMENT, Payson, Arizona,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-17347
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00640-ROS
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
William Sharkozy appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
FILED
MAR 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 08-17347 2
dismissing his action alleging that police officers neglected their duties. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the
district court’s dismissal pursuant to its local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,
53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action for
failure to file an opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss because Sharkozy had
ample time to respond to the motion to dismiss but failed to do so. See id. at 54.
Morever, Sharkozy has waived any challenge to the district court’s dismissal
because he has not addressed it on appeal. See Kim v. Kang, 154 F.3d 996, 1000
(9th Cir. 1998) (“[W]e will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not
specifically and distinctly argued in appellant’s opening brief.”) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
Sharkozy’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Sharkozy’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall
amend the docket to reflect this status.
Sharkozy’s other pending motions, filed on August 27, 2009, are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --