Larry Noble Mays v. City of Los Angeles Police Department;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY NOBLE MAYS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES POLICE
DEPARTMENT; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-55635
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-04775-ODW-JC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Larry Noble Mays appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute.
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

/Research 08-55635 2
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion,
Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir. 1984), and we affirm.
Because Mays does not raise any arguments regarding the district court’s
basis for dismissal, he waives any such challenge on appeal. See Greenwood v.
FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued
specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief. We will not manufacture
arguments for an appellant . . . .”) (internal citation omitted). Mays’s contentions
regarding the merits of his underlying claims are unavailing. See Al-Torki v.
Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1385 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that a dismissal for failure to
prosecute “prevents disposition on the merits”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --