Glen Broemer v. Central Intelligence Agency;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLEN BROEMER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-56265
D.C. No. 2:01-cv-04340-MMM-
RZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Glen Broemer appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his action alleging that employees of the Central Intelligence Agency have been
following him, threatening him, and physically injuring him for many years. We
FILED
JUN 18 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-56265 2
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. McDonald v. Sun
Oil Co., 548 F.3d 774, 778 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 2825 (2009).
We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claims in
Broemer’s fourth amended complaint because Broemer did not raise a triable issue
as to whether he had been harmed by the defendants. See Nilsson v. City of Mesa,
503 F.3d 947, 952 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that a “conclusory, self-serving
affidavit, lacking detailed facts and any supporting evidence, is insufficient to
create a genuine issue of material fact”) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Broemer’s remaining contentions, including his challenges to dismissals of
claims and defendants from his previous complaints, are unpersuasive.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --