Case Name: Jonathan B. NEUBER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joshua PRITT; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-20
Citations: 707 F. App'x 889
Docket Number: No. 17-35122
Parties: Jonathan B. NEUBER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joshua PRITT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 889–889

Head Matter:
Jonathan B. NEUBER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joshua PRITT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-35122
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 18, 2017
Filed December 20, 2017
Jonathan B. Neuber, Pro Se
Gerald L. Warren, Attorney, Law Office of Gerald Warren and Associates, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, 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
Jonathan B. Neuber appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from the imposition of certain conditions of probation and post-prison supervision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's summary judgment and finding of qualified immunity, May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 560-61 (9th Cir. 1997), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants' conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Plumhoff v. Rickard, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 2023, 188 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2014) (officials sued under § 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a right that was clearly established; "a defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the right's contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in the defendant's shoes would have understood that he was violating it").
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 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.