Court Opinion

ID: 9366679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 18:01:09.492476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.292923
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 27 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHIDI N. ANUNKA,                                No. 22-35094

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:20-cv-06252-BHS

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
AMAZON SERVICE INTERNATIONAL,
INC.,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Washington
                   Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Chidi N. Anunka appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in his action alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

(“ADEA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.

Shelley v. Geren, 666 F.3d. 599, 604 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      The district court properly granted summary judgment on Anunka’s ADEA

claims because Anunka failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See

29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1) (ADEA plaintiff must file a timely charge with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission before commencing a civil action).

      We do not consider claims that Anunka failed to allege in his complaint. See

Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 969 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming

summary judgment where the complaint did not give fair notice of the factual basis

for a claim raised for the first time in opposition to summary judgment).

      We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Anunka’s motion for relief (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                   22-35094