John M. WASSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
John M. Wasson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), alleging claims relating to his unpatented mining site in the Umatilla National Forest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Nolan v. Heald Coll., 551 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Wasson’s Fourth Amendment claim against defendant Helberg because Wasson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he had a reasonable expectation of privacy relating to the photography of his trailer through an unobstructed window. See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979) (setting forth two-part test for determining whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Wasson’s due process claims against defendants Johnson, Mayte, and Reid because Wasson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was deprived of a constitutionally protected liberty interest or adequate procedural protections. See United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2012) (identifying requirements for substantive and procedural due process claims).
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).
We treat Wasson’s filing (Docket Entry No. 17) as a motion to file a late reply brief, and grant the motion. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 16.