NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN E. BURGESS, No. 15-16770
Plaintiff-counter-claim- D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00487-SKO
defendant-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
DENNIS MINENI,
Defendant-counter-claimant-
plaintiff-Appellee,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Counter-defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 14, 2017***
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
John E. Burgess appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
for the United States in his breach of contract action against Mineni. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Burgess fails to address how the district court erred in
granting summary judgment and, thus, this issue is waived. See Wilcox v. Comm’r,
848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988) (arguments not raised on appeal by pro se
litigant deemed abandoned); see also Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144
(9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening
brief are waived).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-16770