NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
FEB 25 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSE GRAHAM, No. 20-55779
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-09948-AB-SS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TAYLOR SWIFT, an individual; KARL
MARTIN SANDBERG, an individual;
KARL JOHAN SCHUSTER, an individual;
SONY ATV MUSIC PUBLISHING, LLC, a
limited liability company; KOBALT MUSIC
PUBLISHING AMERICA, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; BIG MACHINE
LABEL GROUP LLC, a limited liability
company; UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP,
INC., a California Corporation; DOES, 1
through 10,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Jesse Graham appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his copyright action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Graham failed to address the grounds for dismissal and
has therefore waived his challenge to the district court’s order. See Indep. Towers
of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “we
will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening
brief”); Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that
arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are deemed waived); see also
Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting that “[w]e will not
manufacture arguments for an appellant . . . .”).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-55779
Jesse Graham v. Taylor Swift
Combined Opinion