
    Merrick Jose MOORE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. J. SLOSS; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 10-17054.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 10, 2012.
    Merrick Jose Moore, Soledad, CA, pro se.
    Barry Alves, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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 Merrick Jose Moore appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment as a matter of law for defendant Sloss following a jury trial in Moore’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197, 1205 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) because Moore failed to present a legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to rule in his favor on either the retaliation or Eighth Amendment claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) (“A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury.”); see also Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir.2005) (listing elements of conditions-of-confinement claim and explaining that the duration of the deprivation is relevant); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (listing elements of a prisoner retaliation claim).

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).

Moore’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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