Case Name: Jonathan Lee ELLIOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-28
Citations: 633 F. App'x 403
Docket Number: No. 14-55283
Parties: Jonathan Lee ELLIOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 403–404

Head Matter:
Jonathan Lee ELLIOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-55283.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
Filed Jan. 28, 2016.
Jonathan Lee Elliott, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Amy Frenzen, Steven M. Selna, Esquire, Drinker Biddle & Reath, L.L.P., San Francisco, CA, William Hanssen, Senior, Drinker Biddle & Reath, L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, 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
Jonathan Lee Elliott appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his diversity action alleging state law claims arising from his use of a prescription medication. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Tucker v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 158 F.3d 1046, 1049 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis that Elliott's action was time-barred because Elliott filed his action more than two years after his claims accrued and he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was entitled to delayed accrual. See Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions); Slovensky v. Friedman, 142 Cal.App.4th 1518, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 60, 68 (2006), as modified on denial ofreh'g (setting forth California law regarding delayed accrual of the statute of limitations).
We reject as unsupported Elliott's contention that he was entitled to statutory tolling.
We do not consider matters 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).
All pending requests and motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.