Case Name: Roy SUDDUTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald BAREFIELD; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-04
Citations: 418 F. App'x 617
Docket Number: No. 09-56542
Parties: Roy SUDDUTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald BAREFIELD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 418
Pages: 617–618

Head Matter:
Roy SUDDUTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald BAREFIELD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-56542.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 4, 2011.
Roy Sudduth, Washington, DC, pro se.
Jeanette Rosa Schachtner, Office of the City Attorney, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. 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
Roy Sudduth appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his action alleging that defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his race, religion, and disability by denying his request for a two bedroom Section 8 public housing voucher. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Gamble v. City of Escondido, 104 F.3d 300, 304 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Sudduth's Fair Housing Act claim because he failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he qualified for a two bedroom unit, or whether defendants' proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying him the extra bedroom was pretextual. See id. at 305.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Sudduth's Americans with Disabilities Act claim because he failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants denied his request for a two bedroom unit "by reason of his disability." Weinreich v. L.A Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir.1997).
Sudduth's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We do not consider Sudduth's contentions raised for the first time on appeal. See Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.