McGee v. Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 18 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY McGEE, No. 24-5356 D.C. No. 3:24-cv-02608-CRB Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; LINDSEY WALSH; MILPITAS POLICE DEPARTMENT; SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2026**

Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Anthony McGee appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

* 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). dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendment violations arising from his arrest, detention, and prosecution. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Because McGee does not challenge in his opening brief the district court’s

grounds for dismissal of his action, we do not consider that decision. See Indep.

Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that

“we will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s

opening brief”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993)

(explaining that issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening

brief are deemed abandoned).

We reject as unsupported by the record McGee’s contention that he

requested a stay of proceedings.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-5356