NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARISTIDE H. NOUCHET, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

MANDALAY CORPORATION, DBA 

Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-15096 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00712-GMNCWH 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 15, 2019**

Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. 

Aristide H. Nouchet appeals pro se from the district court’s summary 

judgment in his employment action alleging violations of Title VII. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Manatt v. Bank of Am., 

NA, 339 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any basis supported by 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-15096 

the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We 

affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nouchet’s Title 

VII race discrimination claim because Nouchet failed to raise a genuine dispute of 

material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for 

disciplining him were pretextual. See Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis Bd. of Trs., 

225 F.3d 1115, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth the elements of a Title VII 

discrimination claim and the burden-shifting framework); Steckl v. Motorola, Inc., 

703 F.2d 392, 393 (9th Cir. 1983) (plaintiff must present “specific, substantial 

evidence of pretext”). 

Summary judgment on Nouchet’s Title VII retaliation claim was proper 

because Nouchet failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether 

defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for disciplining him were 

pretextual. See Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1108 (9th Cir. 

2008) (setting forth elements of a Title VII retaliation claim).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nouchet’s Title 

VII hostile work environment claim because Nouchet failed to raise a genuine 

dispute of material fact as to whether any alleged conduct was sufficiently severe 

or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment and create an abusive work 

environment. See Manatt, 339 F.3d at 798 (elements of a prima facie case of 
3 18-15096 

hostile work environment based on race under Title VII). 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised in the 

opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See 

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not consider 

documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 

870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court 

are not part of the record on appeal.”).

Defendant’s motion to strike exhibits not presented to the district court, as 

set forth in its answering brief, is denied as unnecessary. 

AFFIRMED.