Dean Kidder, II v. Los Angeles County , 684 F. App'x 642 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEAN MARTIN KIDDER, II, No. 15-55595
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-06218-SVW-E
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LOS ANGELES COUNTY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Dean Martin Kidder, II, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Balvage v.
Ryderwood Improvement & Serv. Ass'n, Inc., 642 F.3d 765, 775 (9th Cir. 2011).
*
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).
We affirm.
The district court properly entered a stipulated judgment in favor of
defendants because Kidder failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether the deputy did not have reasonable suspicion to execute the traffic stop or
probable cause to conduct the automobile search. See United States v. Willis, 431
F.3d 709, 714-16 (9th Cir. 2005) (no Fourth Amendment violation where officer
has reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation occurred); United States v. Pinela-
Hernandez, 262 F.3d 974, 977-78 (9th Cir. 2001) (police may conduct a
warrantless search of a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe that it
contains contraband).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or 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 15-55595