Opinion
20-35905
09-16-2021
In re: BRENT EVAN WEBSTER, BRENT EVAN WEBSTER, Petitioner-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted September 14, 2021 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:20-mc-00903
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.MEMORANDUM [*]
Brent Evan Webster appeals pro se from the district court's order imposing a prefiling review restriction on Webster's filings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Webster fails to address how the district court erred by imposing the prefiling review restriction on frivolous or repetitive filings. As a result, Webster has waived his challenge to the district court's order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) ("[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived."); 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 matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Mano-Y & M, Ltd. v. Field (In re Mortg. Store, Inc.), 773 F.3d 990, 998 (9th Cir. 2014); Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
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).