Case Name: David JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. YATES; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-29
Citations: 402 F. App'x 220
Docket Number: No. 09-16997
Parties: David JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. YATES; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 220–221

Head Matter:
David JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. YATES; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-16997.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 29, 2010.
David Johnson, Jr., Coalinga, CA, pro se.
David Carrasco, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, 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
David Johnson, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing Johnson's action challenging defendants' alleged denial of his requests to be classified as ineligible to participate in work programs or to be granted accommodations for his back problems. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Johnson failed to state a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Social Security Act. See O'Guinn v. Lo-velock Carr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir.2007) (listing elements of a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (providing for judicial review of "any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security").
This court does not consider matters that are 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).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.