Nicolas David Andreas v. Matthew Cate

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NICOLAS DAVID ANDREAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MATTHEW CATE,
Defendant,
and
K. JOHNSON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17367
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01207-FCD-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JAN 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17367 2
California state prisoner Nicolas David Andreas appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, without
prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th
Cir. 2003). We affirm.
By failing to discuss the issue of exhaustion in his opening brief, Andreas
has waived any arguments that the district court erred in dismissing for
nonexhaustion. See Entm’t Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122
F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 1997) (“We review only issues which are argued
specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief. We will not manufacture
arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim[.]”
(citation omitted)); Wilcox v. Comm’r, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988)
(arguments not raised on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned).
Andreas’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --