Case ID: f-appx_459/html/0635-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jonathan CARTER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CLARK COUNTY; Nevada Department of Parole & Probation; State of Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety, Defendants, and Family and Child Treatment of Southern Nevada, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 10-16993.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 23, 2011.
    
      Kirk Kennedy, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Bart Kurt Larsen, Kolesar & Leatham, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, FARRIS, Circuit Judge, and GETTLEMAN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

1. Before the district court, Carter “oppose[d] the dismissal without prejudice of his remaining state law claims” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and so “waived [his] objection to the district court’s discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.” Kohler v. Inter-Tel Techs., 244 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir.2001).

2. Summary judgment is proper, “after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case .... In such a situation, there can be no genuine issue as to any material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). In support of his claims, Carter submitted only his vague, conclusory answers to Family and Child Treatment’s interrogatories, and “this court has refused to find a genuine issue where the only evidence presented is uncorroborated and self-serving testimony.” Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also FTC v. Publ’g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.1997) (“A conelusory, self-serving affidavit, lacking detailed facts and any supporting evidence, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.”)-

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