NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 4 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARY B. JEFFERSON, No. 14-56297
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01345-GW-CW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TIME WARNER CABLE, INC.; TIME
WARNER CABLE, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Gary B. Jefferson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his employment action alleging claims under Title VII and California
law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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 on the basis of res judicata. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d
953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jefferson’s action as precluded by the
doctrine of res judicata because Jefferson’s claims could have been raised in his
prior action, which resulted in a final judgment. See id. (stating requirements of
res judicata under federal law). Contrary to Jefferson’s contention, the continuing
tort doctrine does not apply to this action.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jefferson’s action
without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Serra v. Lappin,
600 F.3d 1191, 1195, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and
factors for a district court to consider in determining whether to grant leave to
amend).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-56297