REED v. OHIO SAVINGS BANK (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

John K. Reed appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Reed fails to address the district court's grounds for dismissal and has therefore waived 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.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant's opening brief are waived).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of documents submitted by defendant New York Community Bank. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) (court may take judicial notice of a fact that is “not subject to reasonable dispute because it ․ can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review and stating that court may take judicial notice of matters of public record).

Reed's request to include exhibits in support of his opening brief (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied because the exhibits were not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.