Opinion
23-35546
12-24-2024
MICHAEL A. JACKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF POCATELLO; ROGER SCHEI; KEVIN NIELSEN; JOHN DOES, I-X, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted December 17, 2024 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District, D.C. No. 4:21-cv-00379-AKB of Idaho Amanda K. Brailsford, District Judge, Presiding
Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Michael A. Jackman appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims arising out of his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Because Jackman does not challenge any decision by the district court in his opening brief, including its decision to grant summary judgment, we do not address these decisions. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant's opening brief.").
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).
All pending motions are denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).