Case ID: f-appx_668/html/0745-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Matthew A.I. Ua CRUADHLAOICH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John BRYSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16403
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 16, 2016 
    
    Filed August 26, 2016
    Matthew A.I. Ua Cruadhlaoich, Stanford, CA, Pro Se.
    Claire Truxaw Cormier, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Jose, CA.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Matthew A.I. Ua Cruadhlaoich appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010) (denial of an extension); Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc., 242 F.3d 1151, 1161 n.6 (9th Cir. 2001) (denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) motion). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cruadhlaoich’s request for an extension because Cruadhlaoich had sufficient time to prepare an opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion. See Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1258-60 (explaining circumstances under which a district court may extend a deadline to file an opposition to summary judgment).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cruadhlaoich’s Rule 56(d) motion before granting summary judgment because Cruadhlaoich failed diligently to pursue the additional discovery he proposed in the ample time he was provided. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d); Chance, 242 F.3d at 1161 n.6 (explaining that “the district court does not abuse its discretion by denying further discovery if the movant has failed diligently to pursue discovery in the past” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as without merit Cruadhla-oich’s contention that the district court erred by taking the summary judgment hearing off calendar. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (“By rule or order, the court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs, without oral hearings.”); N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7-l(b) (“In the Judge’s discretion ... a motion may be determined without oral argument^]”).

We do not consider the merits of the district court’s summary judgment order because Cruadhlaoich does not raise them on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

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