From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hansen v. Clark County

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 23, 2009
310 F. App'x 158 (9th Cir. 2009)

Opinion

No. 07-16499.

Submitted January 14, 2009.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed January 23, 2009.

Kirk T. Kennedy, Esquire, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Gloria M. Navarro, Deputy District, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Brian E. Sandoval, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-00672-BES.

Before: BRIGHT, HUG, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.

The Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Ronald Hansen appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of, Clark County for claimed violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hansen's Title VII and ADEA claims because Hansen has not raised a genuine issue of material fact that the County's proffered reasons for its employment decision were a pretext for discrimination. See Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P'ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1212 (9th Cir. 2008); Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1028 (9th Cir. 2006). This failure to establish intentional discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA eviscerates his § 1983 claims based on the same conduct. See Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Cmty. Coll. Dist., 934 F.2d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 1991).

We decline Hansen's invitation to address his state law claim of negligent supervision. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the pendent state law claim once it had granted summary judgment on all federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Hansen v. Clark County

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 23, 2009
310 F. App'x 158 (9th Cir. 2009)
Case details for

Hansen v. Clark County

Case Details

Full title:Ronald HANSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLARK COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jan 23, 2009

Citations

310 F. App'x 158 (9th Cir. 2009)

Citing Cases

Rentfrow v. County of Merced

In fact, county district attorney's offices are often maintained as Title VII defendants independent of the…