
    Alvin Ronnel ROSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. LATRAILLE; J. Callow, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16764.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 28, 2016.
    Alvin Ronnel Ross, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Kathleen Boergers, office of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alvin Ronnel Ross, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim arising out of his removal from his work assignment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ross’ retaliation claim against defendant Callow because Ross failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Callow’s actions did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. See id. at 1269 (setting forth the elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806-07 (9th Cir.1995) (explaining that it is the plaintiffs burden to prove the absence of a legitimate correctional goal and that courts “should afford appropriate deference and flexibility to prison officials” when evaluating proffered legitimate goals (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 461 (9th Cir.1995) (“Legitimate goals of a correctional institution include the preservation of internal order and discipline and the maintenance of institutional security.”).

Contrary to Ross’ contention, the district court addressed his state law claims against defendant Latraille when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims.

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) (per curiam); see also United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir.1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

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