NATHAN BONDS, AKA Slim v. Ryan Phillips;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATHAN BONDS, AKA Slim,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RYAN PHILLIPS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-35901
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01745-RAJ-MAT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Nathan Bonds, aka Slim, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations arising out of his detention and arrest by state officials. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Hughes v. Kisela, 862
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 30 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-35901
F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm.
The scope of the appeal is limited to summary judgment on Bonds’s
excessive force claim against Deputy Sheriff Ryan Phillips because Bonds failed to
file an amended notice of appeal regarding the grant of summary judgment as to
Washington State Department of Corrections Specialist Michael Woodruff. See
Fed. R. App. P. 3(a)(1) (“An appeal permitted by law as of right . . . may be taken
only by filing a notice of appeal with the district clerk within the time allowed by
Rule 4.”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bonds’s excessive
force claim because Bonds failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether Deputy Sheriff Ryan Phillips’s action of handcuffing Bond in the holding
cell was an objectively unreasonable response to an immediate threat to Phillips
and others’ safety. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989)
(describing the factors to be considered in light of the totality of the
circumstances).
We do not consider any claims that Bonds did not raise before the district
court or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in Bonds’s
opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --