NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 16 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRENT EVAN WEBSTER, No. 20-35785

Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00877-MO

v.

MEMORANDUM*

DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 14, 2021**

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Brent Evan Webster appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying any relief sought

in his “objections to no evidence hearings on April 30, 2020,” in his adversary

proceeding against the Oregon Division of Child Support. We have jurisdiction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Webster fails to address how the district court erred by

dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As a result, Webster has waived his

challenge to the district court’s 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.”); 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 . . . .”).

We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Mano-Y

& M, Ltd. v. Field (In re Mortg. Store, Inc.), 773 F.3d 990, 998 (9th Cir. 2014);

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 20-35785