Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0582-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Earl STRICKLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-15971
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 7, 2016
    Robert Earl Strickland, Pro Se
    Michael P. Jones, Attorney, Stefanie R. Moll, Attorney, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Houston, TX, Thomas M. Peterson, Attorney, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appel-lee
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Earl Strickland appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action under the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Strickland failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the release agreement that Strickland signed was invalid. See Stroman v. W. Coast Grocery Co., 884 F.2d 458, 462-63 (9th Cir. 1989) (a release of claims is valid if it is voluntary, deliberate, and informed); see also Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 389 F.3d 840, 848 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding settlement agreement releasing ADA claims where plaintiff failed to establish that the agreement was procured by duress or any other basis that would render it invalid).

We do not consider issues or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.