
    Tony ASBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PHELPS, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-16899.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 4, 2014.
    Tony Asberry, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Megan R. O’Carroll, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General Sacramento, CA, Suzanne Antley, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, 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 Tony Asberry appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment in connection with his prison housing assignments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, FDIC v. Henderson, 940 F.2d 465, 471 (9th Cir.1991), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Asberry failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant intentionally discriminated against him on the basis of race. See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (a § 1983 equal protection claim requires showing that the defendant “acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class”); see also Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir.2011) (“To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth non-speculative evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.”).

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) (per curiam).

Defendant’s unopposed motion to supplement the record, filed on June 9, 2014, is granted.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is no.t precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     