Case Name: Julian R. HOOD, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-24
Citations: 689 F. App'x 574
Docket Number: No. 16-56053
Parties: Julian R. HOOD, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 574–575

Head Matter:
Julian R. HOOD, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-56053
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 24, 2017
Julian R. Hood, Jr., Pro Se
Dianne M. Schweiner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Katherine L. Parker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Attorneys Office, Esquire, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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
Julian R. Hood, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his employment action against the United States Postal Service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed as untimely Hood's action because Hood failed to initiate contact with the Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") Counselor within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory incident. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1) ("An aggrieved person must initiate contact with a Counselor within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory!;.]"); see also Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1105 (9th Cir. 2002) (failure to comply with this 45 day requirement is "fatal to a federal employee's discrimination claim").
We do not consider any claims that Hood did not raise before the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 988, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Hood's opposed "Motion Requesting Court to Take Judicial Notice of Additional Medical Exhibits" (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied.
Hood's request for reimbursement of costs, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.