Case ID: f-appx_323/html/0620-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Milo D. BURROUGHS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ray LAHOOD, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 07-35863.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2009.
    
    Filed April 24, 2009.
    Milo D. Burroughs, Yelm, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Ray LaHood is substituted for his predecessor, Mary E. Peters, as Secretary of the Department of Transportation, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Milo D. Burroughs appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for the Department of Transportation in his employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Whitman v. Mineta, 541 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir.2008), and affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Burroughs’s age discrimination claim because Burroughs failed to establish that he was qualified for the positions he applied for. See id. at 932 (affirming summary judgment on age discrimination claim where plaintiff failed to establish that he was qualified for the position).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Burroughs’s sex discrimination claim because Burroughs did not exhaust his administrative remedies for that claim. See Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2003).

We deem abandoned Burroughs’s undeveloped contentions. See Pierce v. Mult-nomah County, 76 F.3d 1032, 1037 n. 3 (9th Cir.1996).

Burroughs’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Burroughs’s motion to add a party, received on November 5, 2007, is denied.

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