Court Opinion

ID: 9910899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-18 20:00:41.940935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:55:04.406406
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 18 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICKEY B. REED,                                 No. 22-56099

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:19-cv-10526-JAK-RAO

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF CULVER CITY,

                Defendant-Appellee,

and

MEGHAN SAHLI WELLS; et al.,

                Defendants.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                   John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 12, 2023**

Before:      WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges

      Rickey B. Reed appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

      *
             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).
for Culver City in his federal and state law employment discrimination action. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Freyd v. Univ. of

Or., 990 F.3d 1211, 1219 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Reed failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was qualified for the

position, or whether the proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for failing

to hire Reed was pretextual. See Freyd, 990 F.3d at 1228 (discussing burden-

shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973));

Merrick v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc., 867 F.3d 1139, 1145 (9th Cir. 2017) (analyzing

state claims of discrimination under same framework as federal claims); Dickson v.

Burke Williams, Inc., 184 Cal. Rptr. 3d 774, 781, 783 (Ct. App. 2015) (explaining

that an actionable claim for failure to prevent discrimination requires an actionable

claim of discrimination).

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett

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

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    22-56099