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:T43e,MEMORANDUM Pedro Rodriguez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitu tional violations arising out of criminal proceedings against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm. In Rodriguez’s opening brief, Rodriguez failed to address any of the 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 review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.” (citation ' and internal quotation marks omitted)); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are 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). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T470,

MEMORANDUM

Pedro Rodriguez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitu tional violations arising out of criminal proceedings against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

In Rodriguez’s opening brief, Rodriguez failed to address any of the 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 review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.” (citation ' and internal quotation marks omitted)); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are 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).

AFFIRMED.

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