NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIMIE L. STARKS, No. 16-15641
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02286-MMD-
GWF
v.
PARBALL CORPORATION, DBA Bally’s MEMORANDUM*
Las Vegas,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
DOES I-X, inclusive,
Defendant,
ROE CORPORATIONS I-X, INCLUSIVE,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
*
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).
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jimie L. Starks appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his employment action alleging violations of Title VII and Nevada’s anti-
discrimination statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.330. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d
634, 639 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Starks’ racial
discrimination and retaliation claims because Starks failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether his employer’s legitimate, non-
discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons for its actions were pretextual. See
Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002)
(setting forth elements of and burden shifting requirements for discrimination and
retaliation claims under Title VII); Bergene v. Salt River Project Agric.
Improvement & Power Dist., 272 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2001) (to avoid
summary judgment on retaliation claim, “[c]ircumstantial evidence of pretext must
be specific and substantial” (citation omitted)); Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co.,
104 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir. 1996) (same for discrimination claim); see also
Apeceche v. White Pine County, 615 P.2d 975, 977-78 (Nev. 1980) (a
2 16-15641
discrimination claim under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.330 is analyzed under federal
anti-discrimination law).
We do not consider Starks’ challenge to the district court’s granting of
Starks’ counsel’s motion to withdraw because Starks did not oppose this motion in
the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(arguments raised for the first time on appeal are not considered).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See id.
Starks’ motion to file an oversized opening brief (Docket Entry No. 10) is
granted.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-15641