Case Name: Daniel Steve DIXON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. LAROSA, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-04
Citations: 667 F. App'x 962
Docket Number: No. 15-15812
Parties: Daniel Steve DIXON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. LAROSA, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 962–962

Head Matter:
Daniel Steve DIXON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. LAROSA, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-15812
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
FILED August 04, 2016
Daniel Steve Dixon, Pro Se
David Charles Goodwin, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
California state prisoner Daniel Steve Dixon appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of an allegedly retaliatory cell search. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm..
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Dixon's retaliation claim against defendant LaRosa because Dixon failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether LaRosa was aware of any protected activity when he searched Dixon's cell. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).
To the extent that Dixon intended to challenge the dismissal of his retaliation claim against defendant Keenan, we do not consider this issue because it was 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).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.