WEBSTER v. DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-16No. No. 20-35785

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Webster's appeal because Webster waived his challenge to the dismissal by failing to address the jurisdictional issue in his opening brief and by raising new matters only on appeal.

Brent Evan Webster appealed pro se from a district court decision that dismissed his appeal of a bankruptcy court order. The bankruptcy court had denied relief Webster sought through objections filed in connection with hearings on April 30, 2020, in an adversary proceeding involving the Oregon Division of Child Support. The appellate court found that Webster failed to address the district court's jurisdictional grounds for dismissal in his opening brief, thereby waiving his challenge to that dismissal.

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

Key issues

Whether the district court properly dismissed Webster's appeal for lack of jurisdiction
Waiver of arguments not raised in opening brief on appeal
Consideration of matters raised for the first time on appeal

Procedural posture

Webster appealed pro se from a district court order dismissing his appeal of a bankruptcy court order denying relief in his adversary proceeding against the Oregon Division of Child Support.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Brent Evan Webster appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy courts order denying any relief sought in his “objections to no evidence hearings on April 30, 2020,” in his adversary proceeding against the Oregon Division of Child Support. 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 dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As a result, Webster has waived his challenge to the district courts order. See Smith v. 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.