MEMORANDUM **

Kelly Koerner, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with prison disciplinary proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Nevada Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Clark regarding Koer-ner’s due process claim in connection with his disciplinary proceedings and disciplinary segregation term because, even assuming a protected liberty interest, Koerner failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Clark violated his due process rights. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-67, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements before imposing sanctions implicating a prisoner’s liberty interest); Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2009) (failure to comply with prison regulations does not amount to a constitutional violation); Koenig v. Vannelli, 971 F.2d 422, 423 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (prison officials may limit an inmate’s efforts to defend himself if they have a legitimate penological reason).

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Cox and Del Porto because Koerner failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether these defendants were the cause of any constitutional violations. See Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-70, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (proee-dural protections of due process clause are triggered only when there is a cognizable liberty or property interest at stake); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225-27, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976) (inmates have no general protected liberty interest in being incarcerated at a particular prison); Chappell v. Mandeville, 706 F.3d 1052, 1064 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[T]o find a violation of a state-created liberty interest the hardship imposed on the prisoner must be atypical and significant ... in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining causal requirement under § 1983).

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).

We reject Koerner’s contentions concerning the mediation program, the allegations of improper conduct by the Magistrate Judge, and the allegedly pending motions.

Koerner’s “Motion for Production of Video and Audio Recording of April 24, 2012, Settlement Conference,” and “Motion for Production of Ombudsman Contract,” both filed August 11, 2014, are denied.

AFFIRMED.