NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIAN K. CARTER, No. 18-17318

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:17-cv-07086-KAW

v.

MEMORANDUM*

OATH HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted December 11, 2019***

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Brian K. Carter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging trademark infringement claims. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Carter’s filing

challenging defendant’s correction in its notice of removal of the proper named

defendant, or by denying Carter’s motions for “award of compensation.” See

Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting

forth standard of review and explaining that a district court has inherent power to

control its docket, including power to strike items from the docket).

In his opening brief, Carter fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any

challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his action. See Indep. Towers of Wash.

v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any

claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); 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).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-17318