¶2 Michael B. Williams, who is civilly committed in the state of California, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants retaliated against him for filing a grievance. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.
¶3 We affirm for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation entered on September 3, 2010, and adopted and approved by the district court on September 24, 2010.
¶4 Williams’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
¶5 We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
¶6 AFFIRMED.