-
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, No. 10-56818 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-02877-TJH-AN v. MEMORANDUM * CANDICE BOTICH; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Terry J. Hatter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 21, 2011 ** Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Michael B. Williams, who is civilly committed in the state of California, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983action alleging that defendants retaliated against him for filing a grievance. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Nelson v. Heiss, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm. We affirm for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation entered on September 3, 2010, and adopted and approved by the district court on September 24, 2010. Williams’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright,
587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 2 10-56818
Document Info
Docket Number: 10-56818
Citation Numbers: 459 F. App'x 620
Judges: Berzon, Tallman, Tashima
Filed Date: 11/23/2011
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/5/2023