T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MOS HE I MM E R MAN, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. UN I T E D S T AT E S DE P AR T ME NT OF A G R I C U L T U R E , be i ng s ue d a s A nn M V en em an , S ecret ary, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 35827 D. C . No . 6 : 0 4 - c v - 0 6 1 3 4 - HO ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon M i c ha e l R . H oga n, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 20, 2011 ** B efo re: S K O P IL , F A R R IS , an dL E A V Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M oshe Im m erm an appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary j ud gm entfor def

endant s i n h i s a ct i on al l egi ng the U ni t ed S t at es F ores tS ervi ce ( “U S F S ” ) w r o n g lyw ith d r e w a1 9 9 7 o f f e ro f e m p lo y m e n t in v io la tio n o f T itle V I I . 

# FI LED JU L 21 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 35827 2 W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo agr a ntof s u m m a ryju d g m e n t, D i etri ch v. John A sc ua ga ’s N ug get , 5 4 8 F .3 d8 9 2 , 8 9 6 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) , a n dw e a f

f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyg r a n te ds u m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f d e f e n d a n ts on I m m e rm a n’ s c l a i m of r e l i gi ous di s c r i m i na t i on unde rT i t l e V I I . E ve n a s s um i ng Im m erm an es t abl i shed a pri m a f ac i e c as e of di sc ri m i nat i on , he has notoffe re d

“ spec i fi c” and “ subst ant i al ” c i rc um st ant i alevi dence ra i si ng a tri abl e i ss ue of fa ctas t o w hether U S F S ’ s l egi t i m at e r ea sons for i t s a ct i on s i n 1 99 7 are a pre t extfor a d is c r im in a to rym o tiv e . See N i l l so n v. C i t

y o f Mesa , 50 3 F . 3d 94 7, 95 4-55 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) .T he di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al s of I m m erm an’ s m ot i on s t o rec use Jud ge H og an w e r e n o t a n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . See U

ni ted States v. H

erna ndez , 109 F . 3d 1450, 14 53 (9th C i r. 19 97 ). T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n b y d en yin g Im m er m an ’s r e que s tt o appoi ntpe rm a ne ntpr o bono c ouns e l be c aus e I m m e rm a n’ s c a s e di d not p r e s e n t e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Se e A g y e ma n v . C o rr . C o r

p . o f A m. , 390 F . 3d 11 01 , 11 03 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n rul i ng on the m ot i on f or s u m m a ryju d g m e n t w ith o u t h o ld in g o r a l a r g u m e n t o ra n e v id e n tia ryh e a r in g . See09- 35827 3 M ah on v. Cre di t

B ureau o

f P lacerC ou nt

y I nc. , 17 1 F . 3d 11 97 , 12 00 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). F in ally, Im m er m an h as w aiv ed an y c h allen g e to th e d istrict co u rt’s d is p o s itio n o f

h is d is c r im in a tio n c la im a r is in g f r o m h is 1 9 9 2 e m p lo y m e n t. See D r e a m G a m es o

f A r iz ., I n c . v . P CO n s ite , 561 F . 3d 983, 994–95 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( “ W e w i l l notor di na r i l yc ons i de rm a tt e r s on appe a l tha ta r e nots pe c i f i c a l l ya nd di st i nct l y argued i n app el l ant ' s openi ng bri ef . ”) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). Im m erm an’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.