Bruce Edward Committe v. Oregon State University

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRUCE EDWARD COMMITTE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-35386
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01341-ST
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Janice M. Stewart, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted March 8, 2017***
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Bruce Edward Committe appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(“ADEA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
* 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).
FILED
MAR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-35386
France v. Johnson, 795 F.3d 1170, 1171 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Committe
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Oregon State
University’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for declining to hire him as a
professor were pretextual. See id. at 1173-75 (explaining burden shifting
framework for analyzing an ADEA claim on summary judgment, and setting forth
plaintiff’s burden in raising a genuine dispute of material fact as to pretext).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Committe’s motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint because the proposed amendments
would have been futile. See Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 555 F.3d 1051,
1055, 1057 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that
“the ADEA precludes the assertion of age discrimination in employment claims,
even those seeking to vindicate constitutional rights, under § 1983”).
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
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Committe’s motion for extraordinary relief (Docket Entry No. 26) is denied.
The parties’ motions requesting no oral argument (Docket Entry Nos. 19 and
22) are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --