Opinion
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05614-BHS. Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding.
BARBARA A STUART ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Long Beach, CA.
For TACOMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant - Appellee: Thomas Guy Robinson O'Neill, AGWA - OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL (SEATTLE) Seattle, WA.
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Barbara Stuart Robinson appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in her discrimination action under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (" ADA" ) and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (" WALD" ). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 192 F.3d 807, 817 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Robinson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was qualified for re-enrollment to the college, and whether she was denied re-enrollment because of her disability. See E.R.K. v. Haw. Dep't of Educ., 728 F.3d 982, 992 (9th Cir. 2013) (listing the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination under Title II of the ADA and explaining the burden of persuasion on the " otherwise qualified" element); Wong, 192 F.3d at 822 (discussing the definition of " qualified" ); see also Wash. State Commc'n Access Project v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 173 Wn.App. 174, 293 P.3d 413, 421-22 (Wash. Ct.App. 2013) (elements of prima facie case of discrimination under the WLAD).
We reject Robinson's contentions concerning judicial bias, set forth in her September 11, 2013 notice, as unsupported by the record.
Tacoma Community College's motion for judicial notice, filed on April 26, 2013, is granted.
Robinson's motion for judgment, filed on July 12, 2013, is denied.
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.