NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM F. HOLDNER, No. 20-35565

Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00307-MO v.

MEMORANDUM* RICHARD A. KRIETZBERG; et al.,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 12, 2021** Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

William F. Holdner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing in part and affirming in part his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing claims in his adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 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, Holdner fails to address how the district court erred by dismissing Holdner’s appeal from the bankruptcy court’s interlocutory orders, or affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his claims. As a result, Holdner has waived his challenge to the district court’s order. 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, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .”).

Holdner’s motion to correct the caption (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied.

No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.

AFFIRMED.

2 20-35565