*1 Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. *2 John E. Burgess appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for the United States in his breach of contract action against Mineni. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Burgess fails to address how the district court erred in granting summary judgment and, thus, this issue is waived. See Wilcox v. Comm’r , 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988) (arguments not raised on appeal by pro se litigant deemed abandoned); see also 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).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-16770

[*] 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).