WOMACK v. CINCINNATI BELL (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Anna M. Womack appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In her opening brief, Womack fails to address the district court's grounds for dismissal and has therefore waived her challenge to the district court's judgment. 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); see also 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․”).

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Womack's motion for default judgment (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied.

AFFIRMED.