WOMACK v. CINCINNATI BELL (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-22No. No. 20-16051

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing Womack's action, finding that she waived her challenge by failing to address the grounds for dismissal in her opening brief.

Anna Womack appealed pro se from a district court judgment that dismissed her employment discrimination and retaliation claims brought under Title VII and state law. On appeal, Womack failed to meaningfully address the specific grounds the district court used to dismiss her case in her opening brief. Because she did not actually argue against the district court's reasoning, she waived her right to challenge that dismissal on appeal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Waiver of appellate arguments through failure to address district court's grounds for dismissal
Requirements for pro se appellants to preserve claims through adequate briefing
Standards for considering new documents, facts, and arguments on appeal

Procedural posture

Womack appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing her Title VII discrimination and retaliation action and related state law claims.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Anna M. Womack appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing her action alleging discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In her opening brief, Womack fails to address the district courts grounds for dismissal and has therefore waived her challenge to the district courts judgment. 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 appellants opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellants opening brief are waived); see also 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 documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

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).

Womacks motion for default judgment (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied.

AFFIRMED.