Aristide H. Nouchet v. MANDALAY CORPORATION, DBA Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARISTIDE H. NOUCHET,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MANDALAY CORPORATION, DBA
Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-15096
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00712-GMN-
CWH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Aristide H. Nouchet appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his employment action alleging violations of Title VII. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Manatt v. Bank of Am.,
NA, 339 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any basis supported by
* 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
JAN 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-15096
the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nouchet’s Title
VII race discrimination claim because Nouchet failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
disciplining him were pretextual. See Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis Bd. of Trs.,
225 F.3d 1115, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth the elements of a Title VII
discrimination claim and the burden-shifting framework); Steckl v. Motorola, Inc.,
703 F.2d 392, 393 (9th Cir. 1983) (plaintiff must present “specific, substantial
evidence of pretext”).
Summary judgment on Nouchet’s Title VII retaliation claim was proper
because Nouchet failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for disciplining him were
pretextual. See Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1108 (9th Cir.
2008) (setting forth elements of a Title VII retaliation claim).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nouchet’s Title
VII hostile work environment claim because Nouchet failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether any alleged conduct was sufficiently severe
or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment and create an abusive work
environment. See Manatt, 339 F.3d at 798 (elements of a prima facie case of

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-15096
hostile work environment based on race under Title VII).
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). We do not consider
documents not presented to the district court. See 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.”).
Defendant’s motion to strike exhibits not presented to the district court, as
set forth in its answering brief, is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --