NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TIFARAH C. M c DANIEL,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. JIM MATTIS, Secretary, Department of Defense, Agency (DFAS),

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 16

- 56560 D.C. No. 2:12

- cv - 01112

- MWF

PLA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2017 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Tifarah C. McDaniel appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her action alleging federal claims in connection with her employment.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

. Vasquez v.
C ounty of L os Angeles , 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 200 4). We may affirm on any

* 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

NOV 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 56560

basis supported by the record, Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc. , 575 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009), and w e affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on McDaniel’s race disc rimination claim because McDaniel failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was perfo rming according to her employer’ s expectations and that similarly situated employees outside her protected class were
treated more fav orably, or whether her employer’ s legitimate, non

- discriminatory

reasons for terminating her employment were pretextual. See Vasquez , 349 F.3d at
640

- 41 (setting forth prima facie case of discrimination and burden shifting requirements under Title VII).
To the exte nt McDaniel alleged a hostile work environment claim, s ummary judgment was proper because McDaniel failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was subjected to conduct that was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her employment

. See id. at 642 (to demonstrate a hostile work environment, plaintiff must establish that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and

crea te an abusive work environment). The district court properly granted summary judgment on McDaniel’s3 16

- 56560

disability discrimination claim because McDaniel failed to raise a genuine dispute
of material fact as to whether she had a disability as defined by the Rehabilitation
Act. See Walton v. U

.S. Marshals Serv. , 492 F.3d 998, 1005 (9th Cir. 2007) ( a disability discrimination claim requires that a plaintiff demonstrate that s he “is a person with a disability” ; an individual who has “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one o r more of the [individual’ s] major life act ivities” qualifies as disabled ). We do not consider documents and facts 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.”). 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).
AFFIRMED.