eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2017-07

Roderick Demmings v. Pacific Maritime Association , 694 F. App'x 514 ( 2017 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODERICK DEMMINGS,                              No. 16-35053
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:13-cv-05737-RAJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before:      CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Roderick Demmings appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his
employment action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his requests
for reinstatement in 2013. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
*
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). Demmings’s request for oral
argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. Ramirez v. Galaza,
    334 F.3d 850
    , 859 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Demmings’s
action without granting Demmings leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint
because further amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc.,
    656 F.3d 1034
    , 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that dismissal without
leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile); Chodos v. West
Publ’g Co.,
    292 F.3d 992
    , 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen a district court has
already granted a plaintiff leave to amend, its discretion in deciding subsequent
motions to amend is particularly broad.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Because Demmings failed to make any arguments challenging the bases for
the district court’s orders dismissing his claims, Demmings has waived any
challenge to the dismissal of his claims. 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.”).
We do not consider facts and allegations that Demmings raises for the first
time on appeal. See Ramirez,
    334 F.3d at 
    859 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[A] party may
not raise new issues of fact on appeal after declining to present those facts before
the trial court.”).
2                                    16-35053
We reject as without merit Demmings’s contentions that the district court
should have granted his request for an extension where the record reflects that the
district court granted five extensions throughout the action.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3                                  16-35053