SHAKIR v. ADAMS (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Zakee Shakir appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. JL Beverage Co., LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co., 828 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Shakir failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants violated his constitutional rights. See Chism v. Washington, 661 F.3d 380, 386 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements of judicial deception claim); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 2006) (requirements for municipal liability under § 1983); Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (elements of malicious prosecution claim).

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.