
    Albert E. YENDES, Jr.; Franklin Garrett, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Troy RIBAIL, Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in his individual capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-56152.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 5, 2013.
    Albert E. Yendes, Jr., Pueblo, CO, pro se.
    Franklin Garrett, Jr., Brawley, CA, pro se.
    Steve B. Chu, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

PER CURIAM.

Albert E. Yendes, Jr., and Franklin Garrett, Jr., appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Nar cotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging that FBI agents violated plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights while investigating their operation of “assistance clinics” offering notarized residency documents to Spanish-speaking immigrants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ claim alleging unlawful seizure because plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing that defendants lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000) (investigatory stops are permitted under the Fourth Amendment “when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot”).

Plaintiffs’ contentions that the district court erred in addressing qualified immunity at this stage in the proceedings, applied incorrect standards in deciding the motion to dismiss, and improperly considered matters outside the pleadings are unpersuasive.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009)

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     