Court Opinion

ID: 6529619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 20:00:38.119029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:19.671576
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 19 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADAM STELTZ,                                    No. 19-35974

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 6:19-cv-00350-MK

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT ADAMSON, Lt.,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Oregon
                   Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted July 12, 2022**

Before:      SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Oregon state prisoner Adam Steltz appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2000). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Steltz’s action because Steltz failed to

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,

349-53 (1996) (elements of an access-to-courts claim and actual injury

requirement).

      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.

                                          2                                       19-35974