NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 22 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KENNETH HILL,                                   No.    19-15038

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03020-JAM-KJN

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
H. COTTRELL, C/O; MURPHY,

                Defendants-Appellees,

and

SCOTT KERNAN; et al.,

                Defendants.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                    John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted October 15, 2019**

Before:      FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Kenneth Hill appeals pro se from the district court’s



      *
             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).
judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

       In his opening brief, Hill fails to challenge the district court’s dismissal for

failure to prosecute, and he has therefore waived any such challenge. See Indep.

Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 

, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not

consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”);

Greenwood v. FAA, 

, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture

arguments for an appellant . . . .”).

       Because Hill’s action was dismissed for failure to prosecute, we do not

consider his challenge to the district court’s interlocutory order. See Al-Torki v.

Kaempen, 

, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[I]nterlocutory orders, generally

appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to

prosecute . . . .”).

       AFFIRMED.




                                            2                                     19-15038