Keith Bridgewater v. Sweeny , 609 F. App'x 446 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEITH R. BRIDGEWATER, No. 14-15782
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01216-TLN-
CMK
v.
SWEENY, LVN, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Keith R. Bridgewater, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 because Bridgewater
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant took an
adverse action against Bridgewater in response to his protected conduct. See id. at
1269-71 (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context, and
noting that “a plaintiff must show that his protected conduct was the substantial or
motivating factor behind the defendant’s conduct” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or 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).
Defendant’s motion to strike, filed on January 23, 2015, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-15782