NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BOBBY C. RICHARDSON, No. 15-15982
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01931-GEB-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SAM PETERSON, Police Officer; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Bobby C. Richardson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Fourth
Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
*
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).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
Peterson, Bloch, Harris, and Bidou because Richardson failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether: (1) Harris lacked consent to enter
Richardson’s residence; (2) Richardson’s arrests by defendants were not supported
by probable cause; or (3) the force used on Richardson by defendants in connection
with his arrests was not objectively reasonable. See Georgia v. Randolph, 547
U.S. 103, 106 (2006) (consent exception to warrant requirement); Graham v.
Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989) (excessive force objective reasonableness
standard); Beier v. City of Lewiston, 354 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (probable
cause standard).
We do not consider arguments and allegations not specifically raised and
argued in the opening brief, or matters raised for the first time on appeal. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-15982