FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY J. STAUDENMAIER, No. 14-55392
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 8:12-cv-00619-JGB-AN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Timothy J. Staudenmaier appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his employment action alleging violations of the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Diaz v. Eagle
Produce Ltd. P’ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
To the extent Staudenmaier’s ADEA claim was based on events in 2000, the
district court properly granted summary judgment because Staudenmaier failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his claim was timely. See
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113 (2002) (explaining that
“discrete discriminatory acts are not actionable if time barred, even when they are
related to acts alleged in timely filed charges”; therefore, the charge “must be filed
within the 180– or 300– day time period after the discrete discriminatory act
occurred”). We do not consider the district court’s summary judgment with
respect to any other allegations related to Staudenmaier’s ADEA claim because
Staudenmaier does not raise those allegations on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194
F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in
its opening brief are deemed waived.”).
Because the district court dismissed Staudenmaier’s ADA claim on the
ground that he failed to exhaust, and Staudenmaier does not challenge that
determination on appeal, we do not consider Staudenmaier’s arguments regarding
the merits of his ADA claim.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Staudenmaier’s
2 14-55392
motion to file an amended complaint because Staudenmaier failed to demonstrate
good cause for amending after the deadline. See Johnson v. Mammoth
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard of
review and “good cause” requirement to modify a scheduling order).
Staudenmaier’s contention that the “federal rules of disclosure” were
violated is without merit.
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).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-55392