FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL F. MARQUES, No. 11-16789
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00222-ECR-
RAM
v.
N.D.O.C.; et al,, MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Edward C. Reed, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Manuel F. Marques appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials
confiscated and lost his personal property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1291. We review de novo, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010),
and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Marques’ claims that prison officials
violated his constitutional rights when they took and lost his property because
Marques had an adequate post-deprivation remedy under Nevada law. See Hudson
v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (“[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of
property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural
requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a
meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.”); Barnett v. Centoni,
31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (“[A] negligent or intentional
deprivation of a prisoner’s property fails to state a claim under section 1983 if the
state has an adequate post deprivation remedy.”); see also Nev. Rev. Stat.
§§ 41.031, 41.0322.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Marques’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-16789