MEMORANDUM **

Marios M. Moore, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims arising from his conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Moore failed to challenge the district court’s grant of summary judgment, and therefore Moore waived any such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[Arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Moore’s challenge to the district court’s order denying Moore’s post-judgment motion to reconsider because Moore failed to file an amended or separate notice of appeal after entry of the district court’s order denying the motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider documents: not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.