Opinion
No. 08-55635.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed December 14, 2009.
Larry Noble Mays, Inglewood, CA, pro se.
Janet Bogigian, Esquire, Assistant City, Blithe Smith Bock, Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Otis D. Wright, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:07-cv-04775-ODW-JC.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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. 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").