Asopuru Okemgbo v. Washington State Department Of ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ASOPURU OKEMGBO, No. 14-35206
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-05119-TOR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
OF ECOLOGY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Thomas O. Rice, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2016**
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Asopuru Okemgbo appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his employment action alleging Title VII and First Amendment
claims. 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 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).
Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2003), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Okemgbo’s Title
VII discrimination claim because Okemgbo failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendant’s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for terminating his employment was pretextual. See id. at 640-42 & 640 n.5
(setting forth the burden shifting framework for Title VII employment
discrimination claims).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Okemgbo’s First
Amendment claim because Okemgbo failed to establish a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendant violated his constitutional rights. See Nichols
v. Dancer, 657 F.3d 929, 932-33 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth test for evaluating
free speech claim in the public employment context); Vernon v. City of Los
Angeles, 27 F.3d 1385, 1392-93 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth test for free exercise
claim in the public employment context).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-35206