
    Thomas John CARLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian DUFFY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-15899
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 23, 2016.
    Thomas John Carlson, Pro Se
    R. Lawrence Bragg, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Kathleen Boergers, AGCA-Office of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Brian Duffy, Chris Tileston, Ulanda Hill, J. D. Lozano
    R. Lawrence Bragg, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee D. Artis
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Thomas John Carlson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials illegally withdrew from his prison trust account Veteran’s Disability Benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Carlson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants-personally participated in the alleged rights deprivation. See Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In order for a person acting under color of state law to be liable under section 1983 there must be a showing of personal participation in the alleged rights deprivation.... ”); cf. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 894-97 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a) precludes. prison officials from placing holds on an inmate’s account, and that an inmate cannot assign his future Veteran’s Disability Benefits to pay for goods and services that he has received).

We reject as without merit Carlson’s contention that the district court did not consider his objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and the authority cited therein.

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).

All pending requests are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     