NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: BRENT EVAN WEBSTER, No. 20-35905
______________________________
D.C. No. 3:20-mc-00903
BRENT EVAN WEBSTER,
Petitioner-Appellant. MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Brent Evan Webster appeals pro se from the district court’s order imposing a
prefiling review restriction on Webster’s filings. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Webster fails to address how the district court erred by
imposing the prefiling review restriction on frivolous or repetitive filings. As a
result, Webster has waived his challenge to the district court’s order. See Smith v.
*
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).
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.”); 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 do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Mano-Y
& M, Ltd. v. Field (In re Mortg. Store, Inc.), 773 F.3d 990, 998 (9th Cir. 2014);
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-35905