MEMORANDUM **
Barbara K. Parmenter appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims and seeking to prevent foreclosure on property in Oregon. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In her opening brief, Parmenter failed to address any of the grounds for dismissal and has therefore waived her challenge to the district courts order dismissing her action for failure to prosecute. 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 Parmenters renewed request for appointment of counsel set forth in her opening brief. In Docket Entry No. 18, this court denied Parmenters motion for appointment of counsel and ordered that no motions for reconsideration, clarification, or modification of the denial shall be filed or entertained.
All other pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.