DocketNumber: 08-17480
Citation Numbers: 356 F. App'x 996
Judges: O'Scannlain, Rawlinson, Bea
Filed Date: 12/15/2009
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 15 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS NALLIAH RAJAH, No. 08-17480 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:04-cv-01153-BES-RJJ v. MEMORANDUM * COUNTY OF CLARK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Brian E. Sandoval, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 11, 2009** San Francisco, California Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RAWLINSON and BEA, Circuit Judges. Nalliah Rajah (Rajah) appeals the district court’s grant of attorney’s fees to County of Clark (Clark County). * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Reviewing the attorney’s fees award for abuse of discretion, see McCown v. City of Fontana,565 F.3d 1097
, 1101 (9th Cir. 2009), as amended, we conclude that the district court applied the correct legal standard and the factual findings support its conclusion that Rajah’s claims were without foundation. In an earlier decision, this court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Clark County on Rajah’s claims of race and age- based discrimination, retaliation, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and various state law claims. See Rajah v. County of Clark, 313 Fed. Appx. 8 (9th Cir. 2008) (unpublished memorandum disposition). Subsequently the district court, citing the proper legal standard and reviewing the magistrate judge’s report and the parties’ filings, awarded attorney’s fees to the County. See Order, Rajah v. County of Clark, No. 2:04-cv-01153-BES-RJJ (D. Nev. Oct. 1, 2008). No abuse of discretion occurred. See Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. City of Hailey,452 F.3d 1055
, 1060 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion where it “was aware of the proper legal standard” and carefully evaluated each claim to determine “whether there was any colorable legal or factual basis for each claim”). AFFIRMED. 2