United States of America v. Dale Domino

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DALE DOMINO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-16211
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-02426-VC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince G. Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Dale Domino appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
the United States’s action to collect unpaid federal reinsured student loans. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. United States v.
Falcon, 805 F.3d 873, 875 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
* 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).
FILED
MAR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-16211
The district court properly granted summary judgment for the United States
because Domino failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to his liability
for the indebtedness alleged in the Certificates of Indebtedness. See id. at 876
(setting forth prima facie case and parties’ respective burdens on summary
judgment in an action brought by the United States to recover unpaid federally
reinsured student loans).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Domino’s untimely
motion for discovery because Domino failed to show what material facts would
have been discovered that would have precluded summary judgment. See Klingele
v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 412 (9th Cir. 1988) (setting forth standard of review
and recognizing that “[t]he burden is on the nonmoving party . . . to show what
material facts would be discovered that would preclude summary judgment”).
We reject as without merit Domino’s contentions that the district court was
required to appoint counsel for his entire action because Domino did not move for
appointment of new counsel after his counsel withdrew.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --