NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARLOS M. MOORE, No. 17-16135
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00410-MMD-VPC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LEWIS, Sgt.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Marlos 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.
*
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).
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) (“[A]rguments 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.
2 17-16135