NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 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 termina tion with evidence of pretext). The district court properly denied as moot Saba’s partial motion for summary judgment.
The dis trict 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 resul ting 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 costs3 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 r eview; “[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, 98 5 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.