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:T451,MEMORANDUM Bruce Warren Creamer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. Because Creamer has failed to address on appeal how the district court erred in dismissing his action, Creamer has waived his challenge to the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”). 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). We do not consider issues raised by Creamer in his brief that are not supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992). We reject as unsupported by the record Creamer’s contentions of judicial bias. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T48d,

MEMORANDUM

Bruce Warren Creamer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Because Creamer has failed to address on appeal how the district court erred in dismissing his action, Creamer has waived his challenge to the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

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).

We do not consider issues raised by Creamer in his brief that are not supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992).

We reject as unsupported by the record Creamer’s contentions of judicial bias.

AFFIRMED.

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