Robert L. Haynes v. R.w. Selby Co. Inc.;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROBERT L. HAYNES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
R.W. SELBY CO. INC.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-55533
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-08129-SVW-CT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Robert L. Haynes appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his action alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Gamble v. City
of Escondido, 104 F.3d 300, 304 (9th Cir. 1997), and we affirm.
FILED
NOV 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-55533 2
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Haynes’s disparate
treatment claim because Haynes failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether defendants’ proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
increasing his rent and evicting him were pretextual. See id. at 305.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Haynes’s request
for further opportunity to conduct discovery. See Qualls By and Through Qualls v.
Blue Cross of Cal., Inc., 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will only find that
the district court abused its discretion if the movant diligently pursued its previous
discovery opportunities, and if the movant can show how allowing additional
discovery would have precluded summary judgment.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Haynes’s motion
for default judgment after Haynes failed to follow the proper two-step process
required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th
Cir. 1986) (setting forth standard of review).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
Haynes’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --