NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 9 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SYED NAZIM ALI, No. 19-15853
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:18-cv-04086-NC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
AMAZON.COM, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted March 3, 2020***
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Syed Nazim Ali appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his employment action alleging federal and state law claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Dep’t of Fair Emp’t &
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Hous. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 642 F.3d 728, 736 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ali’s claim for
race discrimination under the California Fair Employment Housing Act (“FEHA”)
because Ali failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not hiring him were
pretextual. See Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 8 P.3d 1089, 1113-14, 1118-19 (Cal.
2000) (setting forth burden-shifting framework under FEHA for discrimination
claims and noting that summary judgment for the employer is appropriate where,
given the strength of the employer’s showing of legitimate reasons, any
countervailing circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive is too weak to
raise a rational inference that discrimination occurred).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ali’s motion to
compel because Ali failed to demonstrate that the denial of discovery resulted in
actual and substantial prejudice to him. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior,
342 F.3d 1080, 1084, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and
explaining that a district court’s “decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed
except upon the clearest showing that the denial of discovery results in actual and
substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
2 19-15853
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).
Defendant’s motion to file documents under seal is granted. The Clerk will
maintain under seal defendant’s supplemental excerpts of record, volume 2.
AFFIRMED.
3 19-15853