MEMORANDUM
Shmuel Erde appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his adver-sary action alleging fraud, fraud upon the court, violation of court order, and breach of professional and ethical duties. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review independently the bankruptcy court’s decision without deference to the district court’s determination. Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
Erde has failed to address in his opening brief any of the claims alleged in his com-plaint or the grounds for dismissal, and has therefore waived his appeal of the district court’s order. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-Huer-ta 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 Erde’s challenges to the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction in a separate action because those issues are outside the scope of this appeal.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publi-cation and is not precedent except as provid-ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.