NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY NEAL BOSWORTH, No. 17-15470
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00285-LEK-KJM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FOSS MARITIME, Foss
Maritime/Hawaiian Tug And Barge; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Larry Neal Bosworth appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his employment action alleging federal and state law claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the
denial of leave to amend. AE ex rel. Hernandez v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631,
*
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).
636 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bosworth’s motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint because amendment would have been
futile. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A
district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment
would be futile . . . .”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bosworth’s motion
to appoint counsel because Bosworth had not alleged facts sufficient to state a Title
VII claim. See Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc’y of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318,
1318 n.20 (9th Cir. 1981) (standard of review and factors for court to assess in
determining whether to appoint counsel for actions involving claims under Title
VII).
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.
2 17-15470