Case Name: Alexander OCASIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-26
Citations: 10 F. App'x 471
Docket Number: No. 00-15777; D.C. No. CV-98-1747-JBR
Parties: Alexander OCASIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 10
Pages: 471–472

Head Matter:
Alexander OCASIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 00-15777.
D.C. No. CV-98-1747-JBR.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2001.
Decided March 26, 2001.
Before WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alexander Ocasio appeals pro se the summary judgment of the district court in his employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review summary judgment de novo. Baker v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 143 F.3d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir.1998). Because Ocasio failed to respond to defendant's requests for admissions, the district court properly deemed the matters admitted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a) and, in the absence of any disputed issues of material fact, properly granted summary judgment. See O'Campo v. Hardisty, 262 F.2d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir.1958) (affirming summary judgment based on unanswered requests for admissions).
AFFIRMED.
. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.