NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CINDY SUE DOWNING,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation; DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 56500

D.C. No. 5:17

- cv - 01047

- DMG

- KK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 8, 2020 * *

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Cindy Sue Downing appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 a ction alleging Fourteenth Amendment claims stemming from alleged exposure to elevated levels of arsenic and uranium. We

* 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

SEP 14 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 56500

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Stephens v. Union

Pac. R.R. Co. , 935 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether elevated levels of arsenic or uranium had the capacity to cause her alleged injuries, and whether plaintiff’s alleged in

juries resulted from her exposure to elevated levels of arsenic

or uranium. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles , 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008) (“I n a § 1983 action, the plaintiff must [] demonstrate that the defendant’s

conduct was the actionable caus e of the claimed injury .”); In re Hanford Nuclear

Rsrv. Litig. , 292 F.3d 1124, 1133

- 34 (9th Cir. 2002) (in a toxic tort case, plaintiff must demonstrate general causation, “ whether the substance at issue had the capacity to cause the harm alleged ,” and spe cific causation, “w hether a particular individual suffers from a particular ailment as a result of exposure to a substance ” ). The district court did not abuse its discretion by sustaining defendant’s objections to certain evidence submitted by plaintiff in opposition to summary judgment because such evidence constituted inadmissible lay opinion on matters requiring scientific, te chnical, and specialized knowledge and neither plaintiff nor the other declarants were qualified as experts on such matters under Federal Rule

of Evidence 702. See Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702; Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael , 526 U.S. 137, 141 (1999) (trial court’s gatekeeping obligation applies to all types3 18

- 56500

of expert testimony); Nationwide Transp. Fin. v. Cass Info. Sys., Inc. , 523 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court’s decision on admissibility of lay opinion testimony “will be overturned only i f it constitutes a clear abuse of discretion” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). The district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that plaintiff failed to submit expert testimony on causation because plaintiff failed to disclose any exper t witnesses in her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) expert disclosures. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2); King v. Atiyeh , 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) , overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County , 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (pro se litigants are held to same procedural rules as other litigants) . Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, plaintiff did not request an extension of time for expert discovery and the district court did not exclude any of her proffered expert testimony on the basis of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c). We reject as meritless and unsupported by the record plaintiff’s contentions that the district court violated her due process rights, was biased, or failed to conduct a de novo review of the magist rate judge’s Report & Recommendation. 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 (9t h Cir. 2009).4 18

- 56500

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED

.