John Shek v. Children Hospital Research Cen ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN SHEK, No. 13-15680
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-04517-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL RESEARCH
CENTER IN OAKLAND; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
John Shek appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
employment action alleging violations of Title VII, the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (“ADEA”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519
F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shek’s action because Shek’s claims
were either time-barred or failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. See 29
U.S.C. §§ 623(a), 626(d), (e) (setting forth actionable conduct and limitations
period under the ADEA); 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112, 12117(a) (setting forth actionable
conduct and procedures for filing suit under the ADA); 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2,
2000e-5(f)(1) (setting forth actionable conduct and limitations period under Title
VII).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shek’s motion to
file a second amended complaint because amendment would have been futile. See
Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of
review and explaining that a court may deny leave to amend if the defects of the
complaint cannot be cured).
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).
Shek’s requests for judicial notice, filed on November 21, 2013 and
2 13-15680
December 3, 2013, are denied.
Shek’s motion for permission for electronic case filing, filed on November
14, 2013, is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-15680