NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY LUCKEY, No. 15-17507
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-
SAB
v.
VISALIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Timothy Luckey appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his
Title VII action alleging discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In an order screening Luckey’s third amended complaint, the magistrate
*
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).
judge found the complaint only included Title VII discrimination and retaliation
claims and did not include a breach of contract claim. Luckey waived his right to
appeal the magistrate judge’s order because Luckey failed to file a timely objection
to it. See Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996)
(“[A] party who fails to file timely objections to a magistrate judge's
nondispositive order with the district judge to whom the case is assigned forfeits its
right to appellate review of that order.”). Thus, we do not consider Luckey’s
arguments regarding his breach of contract claim.
We do not consider Luckey’s Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims
because Luckey does not challenge the district court’s summary judgment in his
opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (court
does not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the
opening brief).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-17507