Case Name: Matthew Robert YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Oregon; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-23
Citations: 668 F. App'x 314
Docket Number: No. 15-35412
Parties: Matthew Robert YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Oregon; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 314–315

Head Matter:
Matthew Robert YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Oregon; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-35412
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 16, 2016
Filed August 23, 2016
Matthew Robert Young, Salem, OR, Pro Se.
Jeff Payne, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, 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
Matthew Robert Young appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims relating to his conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R, Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
Contrary to Young's contentions, defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was a procedurally proper response to Young's second amended complaint and the district court properly ruled on it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (the defense of failure to state a claim may be raised by motion, rather than a responsive pleading).
We do not address the merits of the district court's order dismissing Young's claims because Young has failed to address the substance of the district court's order in his opening brief. See Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 612 F.3d 1140, 1149 n.4 (9th Cir. 2010) ("We review only issues [that] are argued specifically and distinctly in a party's opening brief.").
Young's Motion to Add the Missing Judgment Order as Appendix to the Pro Se Brief, filed on November 2, 2015, is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.