Case ID: f-appx_684/html/0642-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dean Martin KIDDER, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-55595
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 21, 2017
    Dean Martin Kidder, II, Pro Se
    Harold G. Becks, Esquire, Attorney, Douglas L. Day, Esquire, Harold G. Becks & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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