Case Name: John Patrick KELLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Unknown MANRIQUEZ, CO II, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-26
Citations: 532 F. App'x 677
Docket Number: No. 11-18070
Parties: John Patrick KELLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Unknown MANRIQUEZ, CO II, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 532
Pages: 677–677

Head Matter:
John Patrick KELLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Unknown MANRIQUEZ, CO II, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-18070.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2013.
Filed June 26, 2013.
John Patrick Kelly, Buckeye, AZ, pro se.
Michael E. Gottfried, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, 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
John Patrick Kelly, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging that a photo was taken of his genitals during a medical procedure without his consent. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity. Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 966 n. 18 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kelly's action because defendant is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Kelly's claim that defendant's conduct violated Kelly's Eighth Amendment rights. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right).
We do not consider matters neither developed in the district court nor 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.