LaKEITH L. McCOY v. J. RAMIREZ, Correctional Officer at CCI;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LaKEITH L. McCOY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J. RAMIREZ, Correctional Officer at CCI;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-16833
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01808-DAD-JLT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
LaKeith L. McCoy, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1044 (9th Cir. 1989). We affirm.
* 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
JUN 14 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-16833
The district court properly granted summary judgment because McCoy
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Ramirez’s
use of force was more than de minimis. See Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37-38
(2010) (extent of injury is relevant to Eighth Amendment inquiry, and “[a]n inmate
who complains of a push or shove that causes no discernible injury almost
certainly fails to state a valid excessive force claim” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)); Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986)
(excessive force inquiry “ultimately turns on whether force was applied in a good
faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the
very purpose of causing harm” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --