NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FILIP C. IACOB,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 17

- 15433

D.C. No. 2:14

- cv

- 00923

- JAD

- GWF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 15, 2017 **

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Filip C. Iacob appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in

his employment action alleging violations of Title VII and Nevada law

. We ha ve
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Vasquez v. County of
Los Angeles , 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2004)

. 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 conclud es 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 17

- 15433

The district court properly gra nted summary judgment on Iacob’s racial

discrimination and r etaliation claims because Iacob failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to wh ether his employer’ s legitimate, non

- discriminatory

and non

- retaliatory reasons for its actions were pretextual. See Villiarimo v. Aloha

Island Air, Inc. , 281 F.3d 1054, 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth prima

facie elements of discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and burden
shifting framework
, and noting that circumstantial evidence of pretext must be
specific and substantial ); see also Apeceche v. White Pine County , 615 P.2d 975,

977

- 78 ( Nev. 1980) (a discrimination cla im under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.330 is
analyze d under federal anti

- discrimination law).
The district court properly gra nted summary judgment on Iacob’s hostile

work environment claim because Iacob failed to raise a genuine dispute of material

fact as to wh ether he was subjected to sufficiently severe or pervasive conduct.
See Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA , 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating prima
facie requirements for hostile work environment claim under Title VII)

. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Iacob’s claim of
neglig ent hiring, supervision , and retention because appell e e was immune from
liability

. See Martinez v. Maruszczak , 168 P.3d 720, 722, 728

- 29 (Nev. 2007)
( explaining discretionary immunity under Nevada law and adopting federal test for
determining if immunity applies ); see also Vickers v. United States , 228 F.3d 944,3 17

- 15433

950 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[D] ecisions relating to the hiring, training, and supervision of
employees usually involve policy judgments of the type Congress intended
[discretionary immunity] to shield. ”).
The district court properly gra nted summary judgment on Iacob’s

intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because Iacob failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to wh ether ap pellee engaged in extreme and
outrageous conduct or whether Iacob suffered severe or extreme emotional

distress

. See Nelson v. City of Las Vegas
, 665 P.2d 1141 , 1145 ( Nev. 1983)
( setting forth elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under

Nevada law )

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

i n the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.