Case Name: Thomas G. CALABRESE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald C. WINTER, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-10
Citations: 285 F. App'x 416
Docket Number: No. 06-55605
Parties: Thomas G. CALABRESE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald C. WINTER, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 285
Pages: 416–417

Head Matter:
Thomas G. CALABRESE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald C. WINTER, Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-55605.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2008.
Filed July 10, 2008.
Thomas G. Calabrese, Oceanside, CA, pro se.
Office of the U.S. Attorney, Joseph P. Ceglio, Esq., United States Department of Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Donald C. Winter is substituted for his predecessor, Gordon R. England, as Secretary of the Navy, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Thomas G. Calabrese appeals pro se from the district court judgment dismissing on grounds of untimeliness his federal action alleging wrongful termination and disability discrimination by the Secretary of the Navy. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
We do not consider Calabrese's contention that his claims were subject to equitable tolling, because Calabrese waived that issue by not raising it in his pleadings or in his oppositions to defendant's motions for summary judgment. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 n. 6 ("We have consistently held that a party may not raise new issues of fact on appeal after declining to present those facts before the trial court.").
We deny all pending motions.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.