Adam Steltz v. ROBERT ADAMSON, Lt.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADAM STELTZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROBERT ADAMSON, Lt.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 19-35974
D.C. No. 6:19-cv-00350-MK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Adam Steltz appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.
* 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).
FILED
JUL 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-35974
2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Steltz’s action because Steltz failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,
349-53 (1996) (elements of an access-to-courts claim and actual injury
requirement).
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.

-- 2 of 2 --