Case Name: Keith R. BRIDGEWATER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SWEENY, Lvn, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-02
Citations: 609 F. App'x 446
Docket Number: No. 14-15782
Parties: Keith R. BRIDGEWATER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SWEENY, Lvn, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 609
Pages: 446–447

Head Matter:
Keith R. BRIDGEWATER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SWEENY, Lvn, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-15782.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 22, 2015.
Filed July 2, 2015.
Keith R. Bridgewater, Represa, CA, pro se.
Jose Zelidon-Zepeda, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Keith R. Bridgewater, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Bridgewater failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant took an adverse action against Bridgewater in response to his protected conduct. See id. at 1269-71 (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context, and noting that "a plaintiff must show that his protected conduct was the substantial or motivating factor behind the defendant's conduct" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters 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) (per curiam).
Defendant's motion to strike, filed on January 23, 2015, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.