Opinion
21-15250
10-18-2022
JEROME A. BEARDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALAMEDA COUNTY; ALAMEDA COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding No. 4:18-cv-02495-JSW
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Jerome A. Bearden appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his employment action alleging race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Am. Tower Corp. v. City of San Diego, 763 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Bearden failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated more favorably, or whether the proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for defendants' actions were pretextual. See Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1103-07 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that the same legal principles, including the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), apply in Title VII disparate treatment and § 1981 cases); Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth elements of a disparate treatment discrimination claim under Title VII).
We reject as lacking factual support in the record Bearden's contentions regarding fraud on the court and that the district court was biased.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).