Case ID: f-appx_418/html/0606-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mai-Trang Thi NGUYEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STARBUCKS COFFEE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-17793.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 4, 2011.
    Mai-Trang Thi Nguyen, San Francisco, CA, pro se.
    Farschad Farzan, Perkins Coie LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey Alan Hollingsworth, Esquire, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mai-Trang Thi Nguyen appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1218 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Nguyen did not present any relevant evidence in opposition to summary judgment, and thus, failed to demonstrate that there were any genuine issues of material fact as to her claims. See id. at 1218-19 (noting that even for pro se litigants, “[a] district court does not have a duty to search for evidence that would create a factual dispute”).

Nguyen’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We do not consider Nguyen’s contentions raised for the first time on appeal. See Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir.2008).

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