Case Name: John SHEK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL RESEARCH CENTER IN OAKLAND; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-30
Citations: 592 F. App'x 577
Docket Number: No. 13-15680
Parties: John SHEK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL RESEARCH CENTER IN OAKLAND; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 592
Pages: 577–578

Head Matter:
John SHEK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL RESEARCH CENTER IN OAKLAND; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-15680.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 21, 2015.
Filed Jan. 30, 2015.
John Shek, San Francisco, CA, pro se.
Mark Alan Delgado, Esquire, Donahue Fitzgerald LLP, Nicole Daro, California Nurses Association, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
John Shek appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his employment action alleging violations of Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shek's action because Shek's claims were either time-barred or failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. See 29 U.S.C. § 623(a), 626(d), (e) (setting forth actionable conduct and limitations period under the ADEA); 42 U.S.C. § 12112, 12117(a) (setting forth actionable conduct and procedures for filing suit under the ADA); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, 2000e-5(f)(1) (setting forth actionable conduct and limitations period under Title VII).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shek's motion to file a second amended complaint because amendment would have been futile. See Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a court may deny leave to amend if the defects of the complaint cannot be cured).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
Shek's requests for judicial notice, filed on November 21, 2013 and December 3, 2013, are denied.
Shek's motion for permission for electronic case filing, filed on November 14, 2013, is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.