¶2 California state prisoner John Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUI-PA”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.
¶3 The district court properly dismissed Smith’s First Amendment free exercise and RLUIPA claims because the prison’s restrictions on third-party purchases of prayer oil did not substantially burden Smith’s ability to practice his religion. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc — 1(a)(1)—(2); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir.2008).
¶4 We do not consider contentions raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).
¶5 AFFIRMED.