Michael B. Williams v. Candice Botich;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CANDICE BOTICH; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-56818
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-02877-TJH-AN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Terry J. Hatter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 21, 2011**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Michael B. Williams, who is civilly committed in the state of California,
appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging that defendants retaliated against him for filing a grievance. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Nelson v. Heiss,
FILED
NOV 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-56818 2
271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
We affirm for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation entered on September 3, 2010, and adopted and approved by the
district court on September 24, 2010.
Williams’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --