22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T44b,MEMORANDUM Kofi Obeng-Amponsah appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging foreclosure related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm. In his opening brief, plaintiff fails to address how the district court erred in dismissing his action for failure to respond to defendant’s motion to dismiss. As a result, he has waived his appeal of the dismissal order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant....”). Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal for failure to respond, we do not consider plaintiffs challenge to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T482,

MEMORANDUM

Kofi Obeng-Amponsah appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging foreclosure related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

In his opening brief, plaintiff fails to address how the district court erred in dismissing his action for failure to respond to defendant’s motion to dismiss. As a result, he has waived his appeal of the dismissal order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant....”).

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal for failure to respond, we do not consider plaintiffs challenge to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.