NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SELIM UMIT KUCUK, No. 18-36020
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01262-BAT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CENTRAL WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Brian Tsuchida, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted September 18, 2019***
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Selim Umit Kucuk appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his Title VII employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d
599, 602 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Kucuk’s disparate
impact discrimination claim because Kucuk failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendant’s facially-neutral accreditation requirement
for tenure-track positions caused a significant discriminatory impact on the basis of
national origin. See Stout v. Potter, 276 F.3d 1118, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2002)
(setting forth elements of prima facie case of disparate impact).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kucuk’s request to
conduct additional discovery in order to oppose summary judgment because Kucuk
failed to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).
See Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d
822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review and requirements).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by deeming the expert
declarations submitted by Kucuk inadmissible. See Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA,
285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and stating that
“unauthenticated documents cannot be considered in a motion for summary
judgment.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised in the
opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See
2 18-36020
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias,
921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the
district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
Appellee’s opposed motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-36020
Selim Kucuk v. Central Washington University
Combined Opinion