Bobby Richardson v. Sam Peterson , 682 F. App'x 617 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 16 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BOBBY C. RICHARDSON,                             No. 15-15982
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01931-GEB-AC
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    SAM PETERSON, Police Officer; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 8, 2017**
    Before:       LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    Bobby C. Richardson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
    judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Fourth
    Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
    novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 
    391 F.3d 1051
    , 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
    *
    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).
    The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
    Peterson, Bloch, Harris, and Bidou because Richardson failed to raise a genuine
    dispute of material fact as to whether: (1) Harris lacked consent to enter
    Richardson’s residence; (2) Richardson’s arrests by defendants were not supported
    by probable cause; or (3) the force used on Richardson by defendants in connection
    with his arrests was not objectively reasonable. See Georgia v. Randolph, 
    547 U.S. 103
    , 106 (2006) (consent exception to warrant requirement); Graham v.
    Connor, 
    490 U.S. 386
    , 396-97 (1989) (excessive force objective reasonableness
    standard); Beier v. City of Lewiston, 
    354 F.3d 1058
    , 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (probable
    cause standard).
    We do not consider arguments and allegations not specifically raised and
    argued in the opening brief, or matters raised for the first time on appeal. See
    Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    15-15982
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-15982

Citation Numbers: 682 F. App'x 617

Judges: Leavy, Fletcher, Owens

Filed Date: 3/16/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024