Case ID: f-appx_623/html/0479-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wilson GORRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas C. SNEATH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-17050.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Nov. 27, 2015.
    Wilson Gorrell, Baltimore, MD, pro se.
    Kevin Emil Thelen, Lebeau-Thelen, LLP, Bakersfield, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
    Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Wilson Gorrell, a former federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging violations of state law in connection with the testing of a urine sample. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gorrell’s negligence claim because Gorrell failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants breached the duty of care. See Flowers v. Torrance Mem’l Hosp. Med. Ctr., 8 Cal.4th 992, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 685, 884 P.2d 142, 145, 147 (1994) (elements of professional negligence claim).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gorrell’s defamation claim because Gorrell failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to the essential element of falsity. See Shively v. Bozanich, 31 Cal.4th 1230, 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 576, 80 P.3d 676, 682-83 (2003) (elements of defamation).

We reject Gorrell’s contentions that the district court failed to notify him of a filing deadline, failed to consider Gorrell’s pro se status, or improperly relied on expert testimony.

We do not consider issues that are not supported by argument or clearly and distinctly raised in the opening brief. See Pierce v. Multnomah County, Or., 76 F.3d 1032, 1037 n. 3 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument in pro se brief are deemed abandoned); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir.1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).

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