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 Andrew G. Clark appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging constitutional and statutory violations related to his arrest and prosecution for criminal stalking. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm. In his opening brief, Clark failed to challenge the district court’s orders dismissing his claims against defendants, and therefore Clark waived any challenge to such orders. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[Arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); 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.... ”). Clark’s motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 13, 18, 50 and 54) and motion to compel (Docket Entry No. 40) are denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T483,

MEMORANDUM

Andrew G. Clark appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging constitutional and statutory violations related to his arrest and prosecution for criminal stalking. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

In his opening brief, Clark failed to challenge the district court’s orders dismissing his claims against defendants, and therefore Clark waived any challenge to such orders. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[Arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); 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.... ”).

Clark’s motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 13, 18, 50 and 54) and motion to compel (Docket Entry No. 40) are denied.

AFFIRMED.

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