Emery v. Gitness

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Emery v. Gitness

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT L. EMERY, JR., No. 24-5344 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-01958-MC Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

GABRIELL GITNESS, BHS Health Services Assistant Administrator; CHRISTY HUTSON, Behavioral Health Services (BHS) Assistant Administrator; ELIZABETH COLEMAN, Mental Health Specialist; ERIN REYES, Superintendent, Two Rivers Correctional Institution (TRCI); K. BOLSON, Corporal, TRCI; MARK NOOTH, Institutions Administrator, Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC); MARLENE AGUIAR, BHS Counselor, TRCI; JOSEPH BUGHER, Health Services Assistant Director (ODOC); Sgt. ROBERTS, Security, TRCI; Lt. HAZEN, Security; Corporal FARELY; C/O PHILLIPS, Correctional Officer at TRCI; JOHN AND JANE DOES, ODOC/TRCI Staff and or Contractors; CARA PETERSON, ODOC/TRCI BHS Staff,

Defendants - Appellees.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2025**

Before: FRIEDLAND, MILLER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Oregon state prisoner Robert L. Emery, Jr., appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional

violations arising during his incarceration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We affirm.

Because Emery fails to address the district court’s grounds for dismissal in

his opening brief, we do not consider his challenge to the district court’s order. See

Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e

will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening

brief.”).

Emery’s motion (Docket Entry No. 9) to expedite the appeal is denied as

moot.

AFFIRMED.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 24-5344

Reference

Status
Unpublished