Mykal Ryan v. Peter Zemanian ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 31 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MYKAL S. RYAN, No. 12-57286
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02054-LAB-
NLS
v.
PETER G. ZEMANIAN, 1 through 20, MEMORANDUM*
Inclusive; DOES, 1 through 20, Inclusive,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Mykal S. Ryan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his state law defamation action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo the denial of partial summary judgment, Balvage v. Ryderwood
*
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).
Improvement and Serv. Ass’n, Inc., 642 F.3d 765, 775 (9th Cir. 2011), and for an
abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend, Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d
981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Ryan’s motion for partial summary
judgment because Ryan failed to meet his burden as the party moving for summary
judgment to demonstrate that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);
Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (when party moving for
summary judgment bears the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the party must
affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for
the moving party).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ryan’s request for
leave to amend his complaint because amendment would have been futile. See
Gardner, 563 F.3d at 990 (“A district court does not err in denying leave to amend
where the amendment would be futile.”); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 47(b)
(codifying California’s litigation privilege).
2 12-57286
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
Ryan’s request for sanctions, as set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-57286