Gilberto Munoz v. Ssa

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 13-55903 · 2016-06-06 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal
Trial court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge: Michael M. Anello (district judge)
Outcome: affirmed — AFFIRMED.
Area: civil

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 06 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS GILBERTO G. MUÑOZ, No. 13-55903 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01003-MMA- NLS v. SOCIAL SECURITY MEMORANDUM* ADMINISTRATION; CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of SSA, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2016** Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Gilberto G. Muñoz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., alleging retaliatory firing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de * 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). novo a district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Muñoz failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ legitimate reason for firing him was pretextual. See Coons v. Sec’y of U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 383 F.3d 879, 887-88 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth burden shifting test for evaluating a retaliation claim under the Rehabilitation Act).

Muñoz’s requests for judicial notice, set forth in his reply brief, are denied as unnecessary.

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).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-55903