Case Name: Manuel F. MARQUES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. N.D.O.C.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-25
Citations: 473 F. App'x 734
Docket Number: No. 11-16789
Parties: Manuel F. MARQUES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. N.D.O.C.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 734–735

Head Matter:
Manuel F. MARQUES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. N.D.O.C.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-16789.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 25, 2012.
Manuel F. Marques, Carson City, NV, pro se.
Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, 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
Nevada state prisoner Manuel F. Marques appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials confiscated and lost his personal property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Marques' claims that prison officials violated his constitutional rights when they took and lost his property because Marques had an adequate post-deprivation remedy under Nevada law. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) ("[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available."); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam) ("[A] negligent or intentional deprivation of a prisoner's property fails to state a claim under section 1983 if the state has an adequate post deprivation remedy."); see also Nev.Rev.Stat. § 41.031, 41.0322.
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).
Marques' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.