
    Bobby C. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sam PETERSON, Police Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-15982
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 16, 2017
    Bobby C. Richardson, Pro' Se
    Danielle Kono Lewis, Esquire, Attorney, Gregg Anthony Thornton, Selman Breit-man LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bobby C. Richardson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. 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 for defendants Peterson, Bloch, Harris, and Bidou because Richardson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether: (1) Harris lacked consent to enter Richardson’s residence; (2) Richardson’s arrests by defendants were not supported by probable cause; or (3) the force used on Richardson by defendants in connection with his arrests was not objectively reasonable. See Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 106, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006) (consent exception to warrant requirement); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (excessive force objective reasonableness standard); Beier v. City of Lewi ston, 354 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (probable cause standard).

We do not consider arguments and allegations not specifically raised and argued in the opening brief, or matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

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