IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

BRENT EVAN WEBSTER, Plaintiff, , No. 3:20-cv-01153-MO □ OPINION AND ORDER ALEX TRAIL AND CONNIE TRAIL, Defendants. .

MOSMAN, J., Appellant Brent Evan Webster appeals the bankruptcy court’s dismissal under Federal of Bankruptcy Procedure 7012(a) and (b). The bankruptcy court dismissed Mr. Webster’s case pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Appellees’ Brief [ECF 17] at 7; B.R. [ECF 3-1] at 4. However, Mr. Webster did not order a transcript of the bankruptcy court’s oral ruling, see B.R. [ECF 3-1] at 12, and his brief does not articulate a coherent theory for reversing the dismissal on appeal. Instead, throughout his brief he refers to the “bogus law suit in Clackamas County,” his “great suspicion of a rigged jury” and the “corrupt legal system” that resulted in his loss at trial, and the trial judge’s role in violating his “unalienable and inalienable rights given to him at birth.” See generally Op. Br. [ECF 9]. .

1 — OPINION AND ORDER

Because Mr. Webster failed to raise any arguments regarding the basis for overturning the bankruptcy court’s ruling, he has waived any such challenge on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh,

(9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. F.A.A.,

(9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant... .”). CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the bankruptcy court’s decision is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (ie DATED this [ day of August, 2021.

yer ICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States Disttet Judge

2 — OPINION AND ORDER