Case Name: Bobby Lee MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Guy Louis TURNER, LVMPD Officer Badge No. 13518; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-09
Citations: 700 F. App'x 769
Docket Number: No. 16-16878
Parties: Bobby Lee MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Guy Louis TURNER, LVMPD Officer Badge No. 13518; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 769–770

Head Matter:
Bobby Lee MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Guy Louis TURNER, LVMPD Officer Badge No. 13518; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-16878
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 23, 2017
Filed November 9, 2017
Bobby Lee Montgomery, Pro Se
Craig R. Anderson, Esquire, Director, Micah S. Echols, Esquire, Attorney, Adele V. Karoum, Esquire, Attorney, Marquis Aurbaeh Coffing, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Bobby Lee Montgomery appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a Fourth Amendment false arrest claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Haupt v. Dillard, 17 F.3d 285, 287-88 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because the record shows that Montgomery had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of probable cause in his prior state criminal action, and, thus, he is collaterally estopped from relitigating this issue in this action. See id. at 288-90 (explaining that under Nevada law, a probable cause determination at a preliminary hearing provides a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue sufficient to support collateral estoppel in a subsequent § 1983 action).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.