Case ID: f-appx_678/html/0536-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Omoyi MVUEMBA, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-55160
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 23, 2017
    Omoyi Mvuemba, Pro Se
    
      Heather M. Bean, Attorney, Grace H. Kang, Attorney, Dominic A. Quiller, Attorney, McCune & Harber, LLP, Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Omoyi Mvuemba appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action brought under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Mvuemba fails to address how the district court erred in granting summary judgment and, thus, this issue is waived. See Wilcox v. Comm’r, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988) (arguments not raised on appeal by pro se litigant deemed abandoned); see also Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief áre waived).

We reject as unsupported by the record Mveumba’s contentions that the district court denied him an opportunity to take additional depositions, submit further evidence, and prepare his opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and that his former counsel did not state arguments or submit evidence.

We do not consider Mvuemba’s arguments and allegations 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.