*1 Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Wylmina Elizabeth Hettinga appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from her state court divorce proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 *2 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall , 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

We affirm the district court’s dismissal because Hettinga failed to raise any argument in her opening brief concerning the district court’s ground for dismissal, and has therefore waived her appeal of the district court’s judgment. See Smith v. Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]rguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See

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

AFFIRMED.

2 14-17135

[*] 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). Accordingly, Hettinga’s requests for oral argument set forth in her opening brief and reply are denied.