Donald E. Bennett v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General;

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).
GT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONALD E. BENNETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-35334
D.C. No. 4:07-cv-00014-RJB
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Donald E. Bennett appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his action alleging disability discrimination in employment by the United States
FILED
DEC 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

GT/Research 08-35334 2
Marshals Service. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo, Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bennett’s Rehabilitation Act claim
because Bennett did not timely exhaust his administrative remedies, a prerequisite
to filing suit. See id.; Boyd v. U.S. Postal Service, 752 F.2d 410, 414-15 (9th Cir.
1985) (affirming dismissal of Rehabilitation Act claim for failure to exhaust, and
explaining that the time period for contacting an Equal Employment Opportunity
counselor “begins to run when the facts that would support a charge of
discrimination would have been apparent to a similarly situated person with a
reasonably prudent regard for his rights”).
Because Bennett develops no argument concerning the district court’s
dismissal of his other claims, we do not address those determinations. See Simpson
v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1176 (9th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --