NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AUG 21 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LORENA FEE, an individual, No. 13-15703
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00302-RCJ-VPC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING
CORPORATION, a foreign corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 20, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Lorena Fee appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action
alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et
seq. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Knievel v. ESPN,
393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm the district court’s order.
The district court properly dismissed Fee’s action because the facts that Fee
alleged are conclusory and do not show that her eczema substantially limits her in a
major life activity. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) (defining “disability”); 29 C.F.R.
§ 1630.2(i)(1)(ii) (defining “major life activities,” to include the “operation of a
major bodily function”); see also Weaving v. City of Hillsboro, 763 F.3d 1106,
1111 (9th Cir. 2014) (a disability is a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities of the individual who claims
the disability). The second amended complaint did not include allegations of fact
that Fee’s condition prevents her skin from functioning.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-15703