Case Name: Merrick Jose MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. SLOSS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-10
Citations: 465 F. App'x 706
Docket Number: No. 10-17054
Parties: Merrick Jose MOORE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. J. SLOSS; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 465
Pages: 706–707

Head Matter:
Merrick Jose MOORE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. J. SLOSS; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-17054.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Jan. 10, 2012.
Merrick Jose Moore, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Barry Alves, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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
California state prisoner Merrick Jose Moore appeals pro se from the district court's judgment as a matter of law for defendant Sloss following a jury trial in Moore's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197, 1205 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) because Moore failed to present a legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to rule in his favor on either the retaliation or Eighth Amendment claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) ("A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury."); see also Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir.2005) (listing elements of conditions-of-confinement claim and explaining that the duration of the deprivation is relevant); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (listing elements of a prisoner retaliation claim).
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).
Moore's 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.