Opinion
23-55360
07-23-2024
TELZY L. DENNIS, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted July 16, 2024 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 2:22-cv-04515-SB-PD for the Central District of California Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Before: SCHROEDER, VANDYKE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Telzy L. Dennis appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging copyright infringement and related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Dennis fails to address the district court's grounds for dismissal and has therefore waived his challenge to the district court's order. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[W]e review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party's opening brief." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); 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).
Contrary to Dennis's contention, dismissal by the district judge, as opposed to a jury, was not improper.
AFFIRMED.
[*]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).