Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Peter C. BENEDITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Peter C. Benedith appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his diversity action alleging various state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal under its local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Benedith's claims against defendants Case Western Reserve University and The MetroHealth System, d/b/a MetroHealth Medical Center (improperly separately named and sued as Department of Medicine Metro Health Medical Center and Metro Health Medical Center) after Benedith failed to file an opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss as required by Local Rule 7-9. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 (providing that “failure to file any required document” may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53-54 (setting forth factors to be considered before dismissing an action for failure to follow the local rules, concluding that this court may review the record independently if the district court does not make explicit findings to show its consideration of the factors, and noting that pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure).
Because Benedith in his opening brief failed to raise specifically and distinctly any argument regarding the district court's sua sponte dismissal of the remaining defendant, Cuyahoga County, Benedith has waived any challenge to the dismissal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); 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).
AFFIRMED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-55053
Decided: April 27, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)