MEMORANDUM **

Peter Barclay appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising from an unfavorable judgment by the Oregon state court in a prior family law action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both the dismissal of an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998), and under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Barclay’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it amounted to a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a state court judgment and raised claims that were “inextricably intertwined” with that state court judgment. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163-65. We reject as without merit Barclay’s contentions regarding the applicability of exceptions to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

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).

AFFIRMED.