TOBY SEMICK V. CDCR, No. 17-16090 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 17 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TOBY M. SEMICK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-16090 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02462-JAM-EFB v. MEMORANDUM* CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Toby M. Semick appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). In his opening brief, Semick fails to address how the district court erred by dismissing his action for failing to prosecute following the district court’s order to file an amended complaint. As a result, Semick has waived his challenge to the district court’s 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 . . . .”). Semick’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 17-16090

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.