N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R OB ER T M IC HAEL M ILLER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. SHAYNA OLESIUK; e t a l ., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17137 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-01856-EDL M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Eliz a be th D. La

porte , M a gistra

te Judge , Pre s iding ** Subm itte d August 25, 2015 *** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , C LIFTON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. R obe rt M ic ha e l M ille r a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt



# FIL ED SEP 02 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

rtie s c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

*** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). Ac c o rdingly , we de ny M ille r’ s re que st for ora l a rgum e nt, se t forth in his ope ning brie f.dism issing for fa ilure to e x ha ust a dm i nistra

tive re m e d ie s his a c tion a l le ging va rious fe de ra l and sta

t e la w c la im s in c onne c tion with his e m ploy m e nt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, Vinie ratos v . U.S., De p’t of Air Forc e , 939 F.2d 762, 767-68 (9th C i r. 1991), a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t TitleVII and the R e ha

bilita tion Ac t (“ R A” ) we re M ille r’ s e x c lusivere m e die s for c la i m s of disc rim ination in fe de ra l e m

p loy m e nt. Se eBoy d v . U.S. Postal Serv . , 752 F.2d 410, 413-14 (9th C ir. 1985) (TitleVII is the e xc lusivere m e dy for disc rim ination by the fe de ra l gove rnm e nt on theba sis of se x, a nd the R A is the e xc lusivere m e dy for disc rim ination by

the fe de ra l gove rnm e nt on theba sis of disa b ility); se ealso Brock v . Unite d State s , 64 F.3d 1421, 1424 (9th C ir. 1995) (TitleVII’ s e xc lusivity re ga rding disc rim i nation on the ba sis of se xa lso a

pplie s to disc rim inat ion on the ba sis of ge nde r); C

le me ntev . Unite d State

s , 766 F.2d 1358, 1364 n.7 (9th C ir. 1985) (“ To the e xte nt tha

t pla intiff’ s Biv e ns c la im s a re founde d in a c tions prosc ribe d by

Title VII, the y m ay

not be m a inta ine d be c a

use Title VII provide s the e xc lusivere m e dy .” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t M ille r fa ile d to e xha

ust his a dm inistra

tive re m e die s on his Title VII and R

A c la im s be c a

use he fa ile d to c om ple t e the ne gotia

te d grie va nc e proc e dure . Se eVinie ratos , 939 F.2d a t 767-68 1 3 - 1 7 1 3 7 2(“ Title VII spe c i fic a lly re q uire s a fe de ra l e m

ploy e e to e xha

ust his a dm inistra

tive re m e die s a s a

pre c ondition to filing suit.” ); Boy d , 752 F.2d a

t 413-14 (thesa

m e re quire m e nt a

pplie s to R

A c la im s); se ealso Vinie ratos , 939 F.3d a t 768 (a fe de ra l e m ploy e e who is a

union m e m

be r and a lle g e s e m

ploy m e nt disc rim ination m

ust e le c t to pursuehis c la im

unde r e ithe r a

sta tutory proc e dure or a

ne gotia te d grie va nc e proc e dure , but “he c annot pursueboth a ve nue s, a nd his e le c tion is irre voc a b le ” ). B e c a use M ille r fa i le d to e xha

ust, we do not c onside r M ille r’ s a rgum e nts re ga rding them e rits of his c la im s. W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). M ille r’ s re que sts, se t forth in his ope ning brie f, are de n ie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 7 1 3 7 3