Vincent C. White, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MICHAEL W. WYANNE, Secretary of the Air Force and MICHAEL B. DONLEY, Acting Secretary

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VINCENT C. WHITE, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
LEONARD WHITE, Jr., on behalf on
himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL W. WYANNE, Secretary of
the Air Force and MICHAEL B.
DONLEY, Acting Secretary,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-56870
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-07728-ABC-
FMO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

08-56870 2
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Vincent C. White appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgments in his Title VII action alleging defendants discriminated and retaliated
against him by not hiring him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1994). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on White’s claims
relating to positions 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 18, 23, and 26-28 because White did not
properly exhaust these claims before the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1) (an EEOC counselor
must be contacted within 45 days of the alleged discrimination); Lyons v. England,
307 F.3d 1092, 1103 (9th Cir. 2002) (“a plaintiff is required to exhaust his or her
administrative remedies before seeking adjudication of a Title VII claim”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on White’s claims
relating to positions 8-11 and 13-17 because his action, filed more than 90 days
after the EEOC’s decision, was untimely. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.407(c).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on White’s claims
relating to positions 3, 22, 24, 29 and 30 because White either abandoned these
claims or conceded that defendants’ decision not to hire him was not motivated by

-- 2 of 4 --

08-56870 3
discrimination or retaliation. See Hollinger v. Titan Capital Corp., 914 F.2d 1564,
1578 (9th Cir. 1990).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on White’s remaining
claims because he failed to create a triable issue as to whether the defendants’
legitimate reasons for not hiring him were pretextual. See Leong v. Potter, 347
F.3d 1117, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming summary judgment on Title VII
claims where plaintiff did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for challenged employment action
was a pretext for discrimination); Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d
1054, 1065 n.10 (9th Cir. 2002) (retaliation case fails where plaintiff does not
demonstrate pretext).
Contrary to White’s contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion
by denying his motion for additional discovery because White did not show that
additional discovery would uncover specific facts which would preclude summary
judgment. See Maljack Prods. v. Goodtimes Home Video Corp., 81 F.3d 881, 888
(9th Cir. 1996).
We do not consider White’s arguments not raised before the district court.
See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
White’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

-- 3 of 4 --

08-56870 4
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --