N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

M ATTHEW

S. AGB A OSI, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, De fe nda

n t-Appe l le e . No. 22-55243 D.C . No. 5:20-c v-01123-JW H-KK
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John W . Holc o m

b, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 10, 2023 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, SILVER

M AN, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff M a tthe w Agba osi a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his a c tion a lle ging c la im s unde r Title VII of the C i vil Rights Ac t of 1964, 42 U.S.C . §§ 2000e –2000e -17 (Title VII), and the Age Disc rim ination in



# F IL ED
MAY12 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Em

ploy m e nt Ac t of 1967, 29 U.S.C . §§ 621–634 (ADEA). W e re vie w the grant of
sum m ary judgm e nt de novo 1 an d the de c ision to e xc lude e vide n c e for a buse of disc re tion. 2 The distric t c ourt did not err in gra n ting sum m a ry judgm e nt. 3 Sum

m ary judgm e nt on Agba osi’ s Title VII dispa ra t e tre a tm e nt c la im

wa s prope r be c a

use he fa ile d to show tha

t De fe nda nt’ s proffe re d re a sons for im posing a thre a t a sse ssm e n t
m e e ting a nd lowe ring his pe rform anc e re v ie w sc ore we re pre te xts for disc rim ination. Se e Opara , 57 F.4th a t 728–29. Agba osi’ s Title VII hostile work e nvironm e nt c l a im ba se d on a

single ra c ist photo a nd note wa s tim e ba

rre d. Se e 29 C .F.R
. § 1614.105(a)(1); Ly ons v . England , 307 F.3d 1092, 1105 (9th C ir. 2002). The c ontinuing viola tions doc trine did not a pply be c a use Agba osi fa ile d to pre se nt e vide nc e tha t a ny othe r a lle ge d ha ra ssm e nt wa s m otiva

te d by disc rim inatory anim

us. Se e Surre ll v . C

al. W ate r

1 Opara v . Ye lle n , 57 F.4th 709, 721 (9th C ir. 2023).
2 Domingo e

x re l. Domingo v . T.K

. , 289 F.3d 600, 605 (9th C ir. 2002); se e also Unite d State

s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–62 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it de c line d to c onside r e v ide nc e that wa s not c le arly and spe c ific a lly re fe re n c e d

in the m oving pa

pe rs. Se e C

arme n v . S.F. Unifie d Sc h. Dist. , 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th C ir. 2001); se e also Domingo , 289 F.3d a

t 605. 3 W e m ay a ffirm the grant of sum

m ary judgm e n t on a

ny ground supporte d by the re c ord. Am. Fe d ’n of Music i ans v . Paramount Pic ture s C orp. , 903 F.3d 968, 981 (9th C ir. 2018)

. 2Se rv . C

o. , 518 F.3d 1097, 1108–09 (9th C ir. 2008); s e e also N at’l R.R. Passenge r C orp. v . Morgan , 536 U.S. 101, 116–17, 122 S. C t . 2061, 2074, 153 L. Ed. 2d 106 (2002); c f. Re y naga v . Rose burg Fore

st Prods. , 847 F.3d 678, 687–88 (9th C ir. 2017). M ore ove r, the c la i m wa s not subje c t to e quita ble tolling be c a

use , am ong othe r things, Agba osi ha d e xpe rie nc e filing both Title VII c om pla ints with the Equa l Em ploy m e nt Opportunity

C om m ission a n d a c tions ba s e d the re on. Se e 29 C .F.R . § 1614.105(a

)(2); Irw i n v . De

p’t of Ve te rans Affs. , 498 U.S. 89, 96–97, 111 S. C t. 453, 457–58, 112 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1990); Ly ons , 307 F.3d a t 1105 & n.5. The
e vide nc e did not ra ise a

m a te ria l issue re ga

rding tolling. Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s prope r on Agba osi’ s Title VII re t a lia t ion c la im be c a use , am ong othe r things, hefa ile d to show tha t De fe nda n t’ s re a sons for c a lling the t hre a t a sse ssm e n t m e e t ing a

nd lowe ring his pe rform anc e re vie w ra ting we re pre t e xtua l. Se e Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc

. , 281 F.3d 1054, 1062–63 (9th C ir. 2002). Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s prope r on Agba osi’ s ADEA c la im be c a use he fa ile d to ide ntify

any e v ide n c e tha

t his a ge wa s a but-for c a

u se of diffe re ntia l tre a tm e nt. Se e Babb v . W

ilk ie , __ U.S. __, 140 S. C t. 1168, 1173, 206 L. Ed. 2d 432 (2020)

. W e do not c onside r argum e nts or e vide nc e ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l
or m a tte rs not spe c ific a lly and distinc tly

ra ise d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f.
3Se e C

oome s v . Edmonds Sc h. Dist. N o. 15 , 816 F.3d 1255, 1261 n.4 (9th C ir. 2016); U SA Pe trole um C

o. v . Atl. Ric hfie ld C

o. , 13 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th C ir. 1994); s e e also Padge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r
c uriam ). AFFIRM E D. All pe nding m otions a re DE NIE D
.

4