Gregory Norwood v. James Tilton , 576 F. App'x 667 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY LYNN NORWOOD, No. 13-15425
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00059-AWI-
DLB
v.
JAMES E. TILTON, Director; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Gregory Lynn Norwood appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an
Eighth Amendment violation in connection with a four-month denial of outdoor
exercise. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
*
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).
Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Norwood
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted
with deliberate indifference when they restricted inmates’ access to outdoor
exercise in response to an inmate attack on staff and subsequent security concerns.
See Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150-51, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth
the elements of an Eighth Amendment claim in the context of the deprivation of
outdoor exercise); Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2010)
(prison officials’ decisions must be given deference when they relate to matters of
security).
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).
Norwood’s contention concerning defendants’ alleged failure to provide
him with a letter pertaining to the attack is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-15425