eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2014-12

Charlotte Weatherford v. Nevada Rural Housing Authority , 588 F. App'x 709 ( 2014 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                            FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 22 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLOTTE WEATHERFORD,                           No. 13-16173
Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00729-RCJ-VPC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NEVADA RURAL HOUSING
AUTHORITY (NRHA); et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before:        WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Charlotte Weatherford appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her action brought under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and other
federal laws. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Jones v. Blanas,
    393 F.3d 918
    , 926 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any basis
supported by the record, Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc.,
    575 F.3d 1040
    , 1047 (9th
Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Weatherford’s
discrimination claims under the FHA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
because Weatherford failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendants discriminated against her on the basis of a disability. See Giebeler v. M
& B Assocs.,
    343 F.3d 1143
    , 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements of disability
discrimination claim under FHA); Lovell v. Chandler,
    303 F.3d 1039
    , 1052 (9th
Cir. 2002) (elements of disability discrimination claim under Rehabilitation Act).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Weatherford’s
retaliation claim under the FHA because Weatherford failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether defendants engaged in any coercion,
intimidation, threats, or interference. See Walker v. City of Lakewood,
    272 F.3d 1114
    , 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (elements of retaliation claim under the FHA).
Summary judgment was proper on Weatherford’s regulatory claims because
Weatherford failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendants discriminated against her on the basis of a disability, and as to whether
defendants denied her a hearing to which she was entitled. See
    24 C.F.R. §§ 8.11
    ,
2                                    13-16173
8.28, 8.33, 982.505, 982.555; Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc.,
    637 F.3d 1047
    , 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (“To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff
must set forth non-speculative evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory
allegations.”)
AFFIRMED.
3                                   13-16173