NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFERY HAUSAUER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. CITY OF MESA; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 15418
D.C. No. 2:15

- cv - 01796

- ROS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Jeffrey Hausauer appeals pro se from the di strict court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims in connection
with his arrest for theft . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s ruling on cross

- motions for su mmary judgment. Guatay

* 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). 

# FILED

FEB 27 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 15418

Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego , 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd ., 905 F.3d 565, 587 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm. Summary judgment was proper on Hausauer’s unlawful arrest claim against defendant Woods because Woods was entitled to qualified immunity. See Ashcroft
v. al

– Kidd , 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011) (discussing qualified immunity and noting that a right is clearly establish ed only if “every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Summary judgment was proper on Hausauer’s deliberate indifference claim against defendants Woods and Murua because Hausauer failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Woods or Murua was deliberately indifferent
to a serious medical need

. See Gordon v. County of Orange , 888 F.3d 1118, 1124

- 25 (9th Cir. 2 018) (a pretrial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment medical care claim must be evaluated under an objective deliberate indifference standard; setting forth elements). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hausauer’s state law claims against defendants Woods and Murua because Hausauer failed to establish that he serve d the notice of claim on Woods and Murua as required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12

- 821.01(A)

. See A riz

. R ev
. S tat . § 12

- 821.01(A) (“ P ersons3 18

- 15418

who have claims against a public employee s hall file claims with the person or persons authorized to accept service for the . . . public employee as set forth in the Arizona rules of civil procedure

. . . . ”); Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(d) (service on an
individual ); see also Slaughter v. Maricopa County , 258 P.3d 141, 143 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011) (“The failure to timely file a notice bars the claim and is not excused by actual not ice or substantial compliance.” (citations omitted)). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hausauer’s mot ion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the claims against defendant Nevin because Hausauer did not present a proper basis for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc ., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setti ng forth standard of review and bases for reconsideration).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hausauer’ s motion for recusal because Hausauer failed to establish any basis for recusal. See United States v. Johnson , 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and objective test for determining whether recusal is required)

. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hausauer’s v ario us discovery

- related motions because Hausauer failed to s how “actual and substantial prejudice” as a r esult of the denied discovery. Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior , 342 F.3d 1080, 1084 , 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review). To the
extent Hausauer’s motions may be construed as requests to take discovery in order4 18

- 15418

to oppose summary judgment, Hausauer failed to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d); Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco , 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (a party seeking additional time for discovery is required to “identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment”). We reject as meri tless Hausauer’s contentions that the district court erred by failing to hold a discovery hearing before ruling on summary judgment or prohibited him from amending the complaint. We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, or matter s not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Hausauer’s requests for a new trial, a new trial judge, and appointment of counsel, set forth in the opening and rep ly briefs, are denied.
AFFIRMED.