Russell v. Snohomish County Planning & Development ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAPHAEL RUSSELL, No. 16-35706
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01649-JCC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Raphael Russell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his action alleging discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and fraud. 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, Russell fails to challenge the district court’s order
granting summary judgment and therefore he has waived any such challenge. 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 . . . .”).
We reject as without merit Russell’s contention that he was not properly
served with documents because Russell consented to electronic service.
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts
not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
Russell’s motion to file a late reply brief (Docket Entry No. 19) is granted.
The Clerk shall file the reply brief at Docket Entry No. 18. All other pending
motions (Docket Entry Nos. 7, 20, 21, and 24) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-35706