Aifang Shi v. Ruth E. Carlson;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
AIFANG SHI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RUTH E. CARLSON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15033
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01147-SRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Aifang Shi appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her
action alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act after being dismissed from a nursing program. We have
FILED
OCT 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-15033 2
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Vasquez v. County
of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Shi’s
discrimination and retaliation claims because she failed to create a triable issue as
to whether the defendant’s legitimate reasons for dismissing her 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 the
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); see also Smith v. Barton, 914
F.2d 1330, 1336 (9th Cir. 1990) (courts look to Title VII to determine appropriate
rules under Title VI).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Shi’s claims under
34 C.F.R. §§ 100.3 and 100.7 because Shi abandoned these claims in her
opposition to summary judgment. See Hollinger v. Titan Capital Corp., 914 F.2d
1564, 1578 (9th Cir. 1990).
We do not consider Shi’s contentions that were not raised in the opening
brief. See Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne, 520 F.3d 1024, 1033 (9th

-- 2 of 3 --

09-15033 3
Cir. 2008) (arguments not raised by a party in the opening brief are deemed
waived).
Shi’s motion to strike the answering brief is denied.
Shi’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --