FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE HERRERA-CUBIAS, No. 14-15429
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:08-cv-00517-AWT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHN B. FOX; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 17, 2015***
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Herrera-Cubias, a former federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment following a jury trial in his action under Bivens v. Six
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable A. Wallace Tashima, United States Circuit Judge for
the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
To the extent Herrera-Cubias argues that the evidence was insufficient to
support the jury’s determination that defendants were not deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical needs, his challenge is barred on appeal because he failed to
make a post-verdict motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). See
Nitco Holding Corp. v. Boujikian, 491 F.3d 1086, 1089 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[A]
post-verdict motion under Rule 50(b) is an absolute prerequisite to any appeal
based on insufficiency of the evidence.”).
Because Herrera-Cubias did not argue any other discernible issues in his
opening brief, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v.
Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2011) (pro se appellant waived issues not
supported by argument in opening brief); Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington,
350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (this court “cannot manufacture arguments for
an appellant and therefore we will not consider any claims that were not actually
argued in appellant’s opening brief”) (internal quotations omitted).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-15429