FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARRY NORTHCROSS PATTERSON, No. 15-15131
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02163-PGR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
B. ULIBARI; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Barry Northcross Patterson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment and dismissal order in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of
his First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009) (summary
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
judgment); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court dismissed Patterson’s First Amendment access-to-courts
and mail-related claims for failure to state a claim. The court then granted
defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Patterson’s remaining First
Amendment free exercise claim because Patterson failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. In his opening brief, Patterson fails to address how the
district court erred in either order. As a result, Patterson has waived his appeal of
the dismissal and summary judgment orders. 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.”); see also 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 reject as unsupported by the record Patterson’s contention that the
district court was biased.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-15131