MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Ricardo Luna-Dominguez appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and equal protection claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Luna-Dominguez’s due process claim because Luna-Dominguez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether some evidence supported the disciplinary decision. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports the disciplinary decision).

In his opening brief, Luna-Dominguez fails to address how the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his equal protection claims and thus this issue is waived. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture *466 arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim.,,. ”).

AFFIRMED.