Case Name: Michael B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Candice BOTICH; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-23
Citations: 459 F. App'x 620
Docket Number: No. 10-56818
Parties: Michael B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Candice BOTICH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 459
Pages: 620–621

Head Matter:
Michael B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Candice BOTICH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-56818.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 2011.
Filed Nov. 23, 2011.
Michael B. Williams, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
Randall Raymond Murphy, AGCA-Of-fice of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, 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
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. § 1983 action 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, 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.