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 K I RSH A BRO W N - Y O U N G ER, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. P R E C I S I ON OP I NI ON , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 17299 D . C. N o . 2 : 1 1 - c v - 0 0 3 9 2 - PM PP AL 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

N e va da P hi l i p M . P r o, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r9, 2012 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , M U R G U IA , an dW A T F O R D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. K i rs ha B row n-Y ou ng erappeal s pro se fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s s um m ary j udgm e nti n he re m pl oy m e nta c t i on a l l e gi ng di s abi l i tydi s c r i m i na t i on i n vi ol a t i on of the A m er i cans w i th D i sabi l i t i es A ct(“ A D A ”) and fai l ure t o p ayov ert i m e w ages 

# FI LED OC T 16 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 17299 2 i n v i ol at i on of the F ai r L abor S t andards A ct(“ F L S A ”) . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , D i etri ch v. John A sc ua ga ’s N ug get , 548 F. 3 d 8 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 istrict co u rt p ro p er ly g ra n ted su m m ary ju d g m en t o n B ro w n -Y o u n g er ’s di s abi l i tydi s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m be c aus e B r ow n- Y ounge rf a i l e d t o r a i s e age nui ne di s put e of

m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o w he the rs he s uf f e r s f r om adi s abi l i tya nd w he the rs he w a s s u b je c te d to a n a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n b e c au s e o f h e ra lle g e dd is ab ility . See N un es v. W

al-M art Stores , Inc. , 164 F . 3d 1243, 1246 ( 9th C i r . 1999) (di sc ussi ng the el em ent s of apri m a f ac i e c as e of di sc ri m i nat i on un der the A D A ); s e e al s o B i as v . Moy ni han , 5 0 8 F . 3 d1 2 1 2 , 1 2 1 9 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) (“ B ecau se [ P l a i nt i f f ] f a i l e d t o pr e s e nta nye vi de nc e i n oppos i t i on t o A ppe l l e e s ’ m ot i on f or sum m ary j ud gm ent , she has fa i l ed t o d em on stra t e thatthere ar e any genu i ne i ss ues of m at er i al fa ct s i n d i sput e. ”) . T h e d istrict co u rt p ro p er ly g ra n ted su m m ary ju d g m en t o n B ro w n -Y o u n g er ’s F L S A cl ai m because B row n-Y ou ng erfa i l ed t o rai se a genui ne di sput e of m at er i al f a c t a s to w h e th e rs h e w a s d e n ie d o v e rtim e p a yto w h ic h s h e w a s e n title d . See 29 U . S . C . § 2 07 (a )( 1) (r equi ri ng covered emp l oyer s t o p ayem pl oyee s one and o neh a lf w a g e s f o rh o u r s e x c e e d in g 4 0 h o u r s in aw o rkw e e k ) ; B i as , 508 F . 3d a t1219.11- 17299 3 B row n-Y ou ng er ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s thatthe grantof sum m ary j udgm e ntde pr i ve d he rof he rr i ghtt o aj urytr i a l , tha tthe N e va daD e pa rtm e ntof the L aborC om m i s s i one ror de r e d P r e c i s i on O pi ni on t o pa yB r ow n- Y ounge rf or o v e rtim e w a g e s a n d p e n a ltie s , a n d th a t P r e c is io n O p in io n ’s c o u n s e l e n g a g e din m i sc on du ctar e unp er suas i ve. B r ow n- Y ounge r ’ s r e que s tf ora n e xt e ns i on of

t i m e t o s ubm i tpape rc opi e s of h e rb r ie f is d e n ie d a s u n n e c e s s a ryb e c au s e o n lyP r e c is io n O p in io n w a s o r d e r e dto f ile th e p ap e rc o p ie s r e f

e r e n c e d in B r o w n - Y o u n g e r ’s r e q u e s t. B r o w n - Y o u n g e r ’s m o tio n f o ras ta yo f

p r o c e e d in g s is d e n ie da s m o o t. AF F I RME D.