Roth v. Gooley

Full title: Lesley J. ROTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chris GOOLEY; et al.…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 29, 2001

18 F. App'x 518 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

18 Fed.Appx. 518 (9th Cir. 2001) Lesley J. ROTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chris GOOLEY; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-35806. D.C. No. CV-98-00500-EJL. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 29, 2001

Submitted August 13, 2001. ^*

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Teacher's aide brought § 1983 action against school officials, alleging that he was terminated in violation of public policy for complying with Idaho statute governing the reporting of child abuse when he made statements about child abuse occurring in special education classroom where he worked. The United States District Court for the District of Idaho, Edward J. Lodge, Chief Judge, entered summary judgment for school officials. Aide appealed. The Court of Appeals held that aide could not recover, where he failed to provide evidence that he reported child abuse and neglect to authorities before his termination.

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** 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.

Lesley J. Roth appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for school officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he was terminated in retaliation for his statements about child abuse in the special education classroom where he worked as a teacher's aide. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Roth's argument that he was terminated in violation of public policy for complying with Idaho Code § 16-1619 because Roth failed to provide evidence that he reported child abuse and neglect to authorities before his termination. See Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998).

Roth's opening brief fails to provide argument on the free speech claims, the due process claims, or the equal protection claims, and thus he has waived the issues

Page 519.

on appeal. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1992).

Roth's remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.