MEMORANDUM **
Whittier B. Buchanan appeals pro se from the district courts summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Buchanans Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care claims because Buchanan failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any defendants conduct in the course of treating Buchanan was objectively unreasonable. See Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1124-25 (setting forth objective deliberate indifference standard for Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care claim brought by pretrial detainee).
In his opening brief, Buchanan fails to address the grant of summary judgment on his Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect and First Amendment retaliation claims and has therefore waived his challenges to the district courts order regarding those claims. 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.”); Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are deemed waived).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without prejudice for improper joinder claims against nineteen defendants named in Buchanans amended complaint because Buchanan failed to establish that these claims arose out of the “same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); see also Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997) (standard of review).
AFFIRMED.