
    James Martin HOUSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YONCALLA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 32, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-35558
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed October 30, 2017
    James Martin Houston, Pro Se
    Haley Elizabeth Percell, Attorney, Oregon School Boards Association, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Houston’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

James Martin Houston appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the First Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Thomas v. City of Beaverton, 379 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Houston’s First Amendment retaliation claims because Houston failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he engaged in speech as a private citizen on a matter of public concern. See Dahlia v. Rodriguez, 735 F.3d 1060, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (to establish a First Amendment retaliation claim as a public employee, plaintiff must demonstrate that he spoke on a matter of public concern and did so as a private citizen); see also Desrochers v. City of San Bernardino, 572 F.3d 703, 708-09 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Houston’s claim alleging that defendants restricted his free speech Jn violation of the First Amendment bjr preventing him from attending Yoncalld School District’s and Douglas Education Service District’s board meetings because Houston failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that he was barred from any meetings.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

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