Case Name: Mark A. SALLENG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-01
Citations: 456 F. App'x 706
Docket Number: No. 10-35787
Parties: Mark A. SALLENG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 456
Pages: 706–706

Head Matter:
Mark A. SALLENG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-35787.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Nov. 1, 2011.
Steven Michael McCarthy, Esquire, McCarthy Law Offices, Indepe, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Cecil Reniche-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, AGOR-Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, 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
Mark A. Salleng appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his employment action against Oregon State University and some of its employees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Salleng's retaliation claim relating to his participation in Brown v. Oregon State University, for failure to exhaust because that claim was not '"like or reasonably related to'" the allegations in Salleng's administrative charges, nor did it fall "within the scope of an [agency] investigation that reasonably could be expected to grow out of the allegations." Id. at 1122 (setting forth standard for exhausted claims) (citation omitted).
We do not consider Salleng's remaining claims. See Cook v. Schriro, 538 F.3d 1000, 1014 n. 5 (9th Cir.2008) (claims not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.