From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dilbert v. Potter

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 1, 2010
402 F. App'x 234 (9th Cir. 2010)

Summary

holding that there was no evidence of adverse employment action based on age where the plaintiff "did not suffer a loss of hours or pay, or any other negative change to the terms and conditions"

Summary of this case from Williams v. Lorenz

Opinion

No. 09-16405.

Submitted October 19, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed November 1, 2010.

Clifford Dilbert, lone, CA pro se.

Abraham Aaron Simmons, Assistant U.S., San Francisco, CA, for DefendantAppellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Maria-Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00087-MEJ.

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Clifford Dilbert appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his employment action alleging disability and age discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for appointment of counsel. Johnson v. U.S. Treasury Dep't, 27 F.3d 415, 416 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dilbert's motion for appointment of counsel given the unlikeliness of success on the merits. See Johnson, 27 F.3d at 417 (appointment of counsel in employment action); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) ( 28 U.S.C. § 1915 requires exceptional circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dilbert's motion to compel and requests for a continuance of the summary judgment motion to obtain further discovery. See Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757, 768 n. 10 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review).

On appeal, Dilbert does not challenge the merits of the grant of summary judgment. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) ("[Arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.").

Dilbert's remaining contentions are un-persuasive.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Dilbert v. Potter

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 1, 2010
402 F. App'x 234 (9th Cir. 2010)

holding that there was no evidence of adverse employment action based on age where the plaintiff "did not suffer a loss of hours or pay, or any other negative change to the terms and conditions"

Summary of this case from Williams v. Lorenz
Case details for

Dilbert v. Potter

Case Details

Full title:Clifford DILBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 1, 2010

Citations

402 F. App'x 234 (9th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Lorenz

Interrogatory Resps. 22. Those incidents do not support a prima facie case of age discrimination, because…