MEMORANDUM **

William Sharkozy appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging that police officers neglected their duties. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal pursuant to its local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action for failure to file an opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss because Sharkozy had ample time to respond to the motion to dismiss but failed to do so. See id. at 54. Morever, Sharkozy has waived any challenge to the district court’s dismissal because he has not addressed it on appeal. See Kim v. Kang, 154 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[W]e will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in appellant’s opening brief.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Sharkozy’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Sharkozy’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.

Sharkozy’s other pending motions, filed on August 27, 2009, are denied.

AFFIRMED.