NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

- GMN

CWH

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 Ci r. 2003) . We may affirm on any basis supported by

* This disposition is not approp riate 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, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 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

m aterial fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory re asons for

disciplining him were pretext ual

. 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

discriminat ion 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 m aterial fact as to whether

defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory re asons for disciplining him were

pretext ual

. See Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co. , 518 F.3d 1 097, 11 08 (9th Cir.

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

The district court properly gra nted summary judgment on Nouchet’s Title

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

dispute of material f

act 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 of3 18

- 15096

hostile work environment based on r ace 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.3 d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not consider

documents not presented to the district court. S ee 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 b rief, is denied as unnecessary

.

AFFIRMED.