NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FADI SABA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

UNISYS CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-16590

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01310-WHO

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William Horsley Orrick III, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2016**

Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Fadi Saba appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 

employment action alleging retaliation in violation of California law. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Wallis v. J.R. Simplot 

Co., 26 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1994), and we affirm.

 

* 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

SEP 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-16590 

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Saba failed 

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, 

non-retaliatory reasons for his termination were pretextual. See id. at 892

(summary judgment properly granted where plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s 

legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination with evidence of pretext).

The district court properly denied as moot Saba’s partial motion for 

summary judgment.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Saba’s motion to 

reconsider because Saba did not identify any grounds for relief from the judgment. 

See Sch. Dist. No. 1J,, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 

(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Saba’s request for a 

continuance because Saba failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from the 

denial. See Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942, 961 (9th Cir. 2001) (denial 

of a continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion and requires a demonstration 

of prejudice).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it entered a bill of costs 
3 15-16590 

in favor of defendants, and we reject as without merit Saba’s contention that the 

district court failed to consider his objections. See Save Our Valley v. Sound 

Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 & n.12 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review; 

“[A] district court need not give affirmative reasons for awarding costs; instead it

need only find that the reasons for denying costs are not sufficiently persuasive to 

overcome the presumption in favor of an award. The presumption itself provides 

all the reason a court needs for awarding costs”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

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). Documents 

or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal. See 

United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

The Clerk shall file Saba’s Reply Brief submitted on August 4, 2016.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.