Jonathan Carter v. Clark County

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JONATHAN CARTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CLARK COUNTY; NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF PAROLE &
PROBATION; STATE OF NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR
VEHICLES & PUBLIC SAFETY,
Defendants,
and
FAMILY AND CHILD TREATMENT
OF SOUTHERN NEVADA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-16993
D.C. No. 2:04-cv-00409-KJD-RJJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
NOV 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

page 2
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman, Senior United States District***
Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
Submitted November 17, 2011**
Stanford, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, FARRIS, Circuit Judge, and
GETTLEMAN, District Judge.***
1. Before the district court, Carter “oppose[d] the dismissal without
prejudice of his remaining state law claims” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and
so “waived [his] objection to the district court’s discretionary exercise of
supplemental jurisdiction.” Kohler v. Inter-Tel Techs., 244 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th
Cir. 2001).
2. Summary judgment is proper, “after adequate time for discovery and
upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of an element essential to that party’s case . . . . In such a situation, there
can be no genuine issue as to any material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322–23 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). In support of his claims,
Carter submitted only his vague, conclusory answers to Family and Child
Treatment’s interrogatories, and “this court has refused to find a genuine issue

-- 2 of 3 --

page 3
where the only evidence presented is uncorroborated and self-serving testimony.”
Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also FTC v. Publ’g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d
1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A conclusory, self-serving affidavit, lacking detailed
facts and any supporting evidence, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of
material fact.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --