22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4ab,MEMORANDUM Bobby Lee Montgomery appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a Fourth Amendment false arrest claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Haupt v. Dillard, 17 F.3d 285, 287-88 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because the record shows that Montgomery had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of probable cause in his prior state criminal action, and, thus, he is collaterally estopped from relitigating this issue in this action. See id. at 288-90 (explaining that under Nevada law, a probable cause determination at a preliminary hearing provides a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue sufficient to support collateral estoppel in a subsequent § 1983 action). 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. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T4dd,

MEMORANDUM

Bobby Lee Montgomery appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a Fourth Amendment false arrest claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Haupt v. Dillard, 17 F.3d 285, 287-88 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because the record shows that Montgomery had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of probable cause in his prior state criminal action, and, thus, he is collaterally estopped from relitigating this issue in this action. See id. at 288-90 (explaining that under Nevada law, a probable cause determination at a preliminary hearing provides a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue sufficient to support collateral estoppel in a subsequent § 1983 action).

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.

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