Opinion
19-56217
09-10-2021
TALMADGE ADIB TALIB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PETER NICHOLAS, (Alleged Deputy) In His Individual Capacity; EDWARD GONZALVES, (Alleged Deputy) In His Individual Capacity; MOYER, (Alleged Deputy) In His Individual Capacity; ANTONIO SANCHEZ, (Alleged Deputy) In His Individual Capacity; ELIEZER VERA, (Captain-So.L.A. Sheriff's Station) In His Individual Capacity; FRED NUNES, (Alleged Deputy) In His Individual Capacity, Defendants-Appellees, and ROB VAN LINGEN; MIGUEL; JOHN GUERRERO; STEPHEN PARK; JOHN DOE SWANSON; JOHN DOE ANDERSON; JOHN DOE ROMERO; JOHN DOE HOOPER; JOHN DOE MARCHELLO; ALEX GILLINETS; JAMES NORTH; RICH KIGUELMAN; LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:14-cv-05871-JAK-DFM John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges
MEMORANDUM [*]
Talmadge Talib appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising out of traffic stops. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
We decline to consider the constitutional right to travel claim raised for the first time on appeal. Dream Palace v. Cnty. of Maricopa, 384 F.3d 990, 1005 (9th Cir. 2004). Appellant waived in his opening brief his remaining claims and any further challenges to the district court's decision. See Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2007) (issues not supported by argument or discussed in the body of the opening brief are waived).
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.