MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Merrick Jose Moore appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment as a matter of law for defendant Sloss following a jury trial in Moore’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) because Moore failed to present a legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to rule in his favor on either the retaliation or Eighth Amendment claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) (“A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury.”); see also Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) (listing elements of conditions-of-confinement claim and explaining that the duration of the deprivation is relevant); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (listing elements of a prisoner retaliation claim).

*707 We do not consider 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) (per curiam).

Moore’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.