C. Telluselle v. Hawaii Pacific University , 528 F. App'x 739 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUN 17 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    C. ALEXANDRA TELLUSELLE,                          No. 12-17191
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00343-BMK
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    HAWAII PACIFIC UNIVERSITY;
    ERLEINA DANAO,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Hawaii
    Barry M. Kurren, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **
    Submitted June 10, 2013 ***
    Before:        HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    C. Alexandra Telluselle appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
    judgment in her action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of her
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c).
    ***
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    enrollment in a graduate degree program on an international student visa from
    Sweden. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo,
    Darensburg v. Metro. Transp. Comm’n, 
    636 F.3d 511
    , 518 (9th Cir. 2011), and we
    affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment on Telluselle’s Title
    VI claim because Telluselle failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
    whether defendants’ allegedly favorable treatment of other Swedish international
    students constituted discrimination against her on the basis of national origin. See
    
    id. at 522
     (setting forth elements of Title VI prima facie discrimination claim).
    The district court properly granted summary judgment on Telluselle’s
    negligence claim because Telluselle failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
    fact as to whether defendants owed her any duty to transfer credits from a Swedish
    university or to provide her academic, immigration, or other counseling. See
    Kaho’Ohanohano v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 
    178 P.3d 538
    , 562-63 (Haw. 2008)
    (setting forth elements of a negligence claim).
    The district court properly granted summary judgment on Telluselle’s breach
    of contract claim because Telluselle failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
    fact as to whether the parties entered into an express or implied contract in which
    defendants made promises regarding academic counseling or transferring credits.
    2                                    12-17191
    See Chuck Jones & MacLaren v. Williams, 
    71 P.3d 437
    , 451 (Haw. Ct. App. 2003)
    (setting forth elements of a breach of contract claim).
    We do not consider issues raised for the first time either on appeal or in
    Telluselle’s reply brief, including with respect to alleged discrimination based on
    disability or defendants’ alleged failure to produce documents. See Padgett v.
    Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
    Telluselle’s contentions regarding the district court’s alleged failure to
    review all the evidence and defendants’ alleged failure to cooperate with
    immigration officials are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                       12-17191
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-17191

Citation Numbers: 528 F. App'x 739

Judges: Hawkins, Mekeown, Berzon

Filed Date: 6/17/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024