Harper v. Watson & Chalin Manufacturing, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN HARPER, No. 25-4374 D.C. No. 3:25-cv-00435-YY Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* WATSON & CHALIN MANUFACTURING, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Karin J. Immergut, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 12, 2025** Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. John Harper appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging breach of an implied warranty of merchantability. 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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).  Because Harper does not challenge the district court’s grounds for dismissal of his action in his opening brief, we do not consider that decision. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “we 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 deemed abandoned). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying as moot Harper’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review). We reject as unsupported by the record Harper’s contention that the magistrate judge was biased. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (explaining that judicial rulings alone rarely support an allegation of bias). All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 25-4374