NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ADAM STELTZ, No. 19-35974 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:19-cv-00350-MK v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT ADAMSON, Lt., Defendant-Appellee.

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).

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 19-35974