Case Name: Marlos M. MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEWIS, Sgt.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-22
Citations: 713 F. App'x 629
Docket Number: No. 17-16135
Parties: Marlos M. MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEWIS, Sgt.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 629–629

Head Matter:
Marlos M. MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEWIS, Sgt.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16135
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 13, 2018
Filed February 22, 2018
Marios M. Moore, Pro Se
D. Randall Gilmer, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV—Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas), Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, 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
Marios M. Moore, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims arising from his conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his opening brief, Moore failed to challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment, and therefore Moore waived any such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) ("[Arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.").
We lack jurisdiction to consider Moore's challenge to the district court's order denying Moore's post-judgment motion to reconsider because Moore failed to file an amended or separate notice of appeal after entry of the district court's order denying the motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith's Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) ("A timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.").
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider documents: not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.