Patrina Harrison v. Ifit Health & Fitness
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRINA HALL, AKA Patrina Harrison, No. 22-16233
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:21-cv-10079-PJH v.
MEMORANDUM* IFIT HEALTH & FITNESS; ICON HEALTH & FITNESS / NORDICTRACK; UTS,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Patrina Harrison appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her state law action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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.
In her opening brief, Harrison failed to address the grounds for dismissal and has therefore waived her challenge to the district court’s order. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “we cannot manufacture arguments for an appellant and therefore we will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2 22-16233
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.