ROBERT McDONALD, Jr. v. Corrections Corporation of America

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 McDONALD, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-15440
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00781-JAT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Robert McDonald, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his employment action alleging, among other claims, disability
discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have
FILED
MAY 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15440 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a
district court’s decision to permit successive summary judgment motions.
Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911-12 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant leave to
file a second motion for summary judgment because the first motion for summary
judgment was resolved by stipulation, not the district court, and because the second
motion was neither frivolous nor repetitive. See id. at 911 (“[A]llowing a party to
file a second motion for summary judgment is logical, and it fosters the ‘just,
speedy, and inexpensive’ resolution of suits. . . . [However,] district courts retain
discretion to ‘weed out frivolous or simply repetitive motions.’” (citations
omitted)).
McDonald’s remaining contentions, including those concerning prejudice to
him, are unpersuasive.
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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --