
    Andrew G. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-35247
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 21, 2017
    Andrew G. Clark, Pro Se
    Sharon C. Peters, Attorney, Lewis Bris-bois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Portland, OR, Christian Joseph Rowley, Esquire, Attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, NA
    Lauren Sommers, Benjamin James Miller, Attorneys, City of Eugene, Eugene, OR, for Defendant-Appellee City of Eugene
    Cecil Reniche-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, AGOR — Office of the Oregon Attorney General (Salem), Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees State of Oregon, Alex Gardner, Eric Hasselman
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Andrew G. Clark appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging constitutional and statutory violations related to his arrest and prosecution for criminal stalking. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Clark failed to challenge the district court’s orders dismissing his claims against defendants, and therefore Clark waived any challenge to such orders. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[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.... ”).

Clark’s motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 13, 18, 50 and 54) and motion to compel (Docket Entry No. 40) are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     