NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 4 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT ABELL; LISA J. ABELL, No. 14-56716
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 8:14-cv-00828-DOC-
JCG
v.
SUSE DODSON; JOE RUIZ, MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Robert Abell and Lisa J. Abell appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action alleging forgery in connection with four tax lien
notices. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion the district court’s dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute.
*
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).
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.3d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.
The Abells fail to challenge the district court’s dismissal of their action for
failure to prosecute, and have therefore waived any such challenge. 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 . . . .”).
Even if the Abells had not waived their challenge, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in dismissing the Abells’ action for failure to prosecute because
the Abells failed to file an amended complaint despite receiving an extension of
time to do so and being warned of the consequences of failing to file it. See
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing the five
factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-56716