*1 Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Emery Soos, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Soos fails to challenge the district court’s decision *2 dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and therefore he has waived such a challenge. 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 . . . .”).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-56663

[*] 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).