Terris Jones, Sr. v. Las Vegas Valley Water Distric , 658 F. App'x 339 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 05 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERRIS R. JONES, Sr., No. 14-15614
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01941-JAD-PAL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT; et al.
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Terris R. Jones, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his employment action alleging violations of Title VII. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Szajer v. City of Los
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any basis
supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.
2008). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jones’s Title VII
discrimination claims because Jones failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether he was subjected to an adverse employment action. See Davis v.
Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth elements of
Title VII discrimination claim).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jones’s Title VII
hostile work environment claim because Jones failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether any alleged harassment was sufficiently severe or
pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment and create an abusive work
environment. See Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA, 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003)
(setting forth elements of a prima facie case of hostile work environment claim
based on race under Title VII).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jones’s Title VII
retaliation claim because Jones failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether there was a causal link between his negative performance evaluation
and any protected conduct. See Kortan v. Cal. Youth Auth., 217 F.3d 1104, 1112
2 14-15614
(9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth elements of a Title VII retaliation claim).
The district court properly denied Jones’s motions for summary judgment
because Jones failed to establish “beyond controversy every essential element of”
his claims. S. Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 2003)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
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).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-15614