
    Jesse GREENBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lisa WALSH, Asst. Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-15764
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 27, 2017
    Jesse Greenberg, Pro Se Charles William Lehman, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNY—rNevada Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NY, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nevada state prisoner Jesse Greenberg appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with prison disciplinary proceedings and his confinement in disciplinary segregation. 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.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Greenberg’s due process claim regarding his time in disciplinary segregation because Greenberg failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his segregation implicated a protected liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (a constitutionally protected liberty interest arises only when a restraint imposés an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”).

The district court property granted summary judgment on Greenberg’s due process claim concerning his disciplinary proceedings because, even assuming a protected liberty interest, Greenberg failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants violated his due process rights. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports disciplinary decision); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings); Koenig v. Vannelli, 971 F.2d 422, 423 (9th Cir. 1992) (prison officials may limit an inmate’s efforts to defend himself if they have a legitimate penological reason).

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.
     