Ronald Henderson, aka Ronnie Henderson v. ALEXANDER & BALDWIN, INC., dba Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company;

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).
LBS/Research 1 08-15340
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD HENDERSON, aka Ronnie
Henderson,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALEXANDER & BALDWIN, INC., dba
Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-15340
D.C. No. CV-07-00101-DAE
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LBS/Research 2 08-15340
Ronald Henderson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in favor of his former employer in his action alleging race
discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s grant of
summary judgment, Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir.
2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the discrimination
and retaliation claims because Henderson failed to show that his employer’s
proffered reasons for terminating him were pretextual. See id. at 640-42, 646.
Similarly, the district court properly granted summary judgment on the harassment
claim because Henderson failed to show that he was subjected to conduct severe or
pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. See id. at 642-44.
We decline to consider other issues because Henderson did not adequately
argue them in his opening brief. See Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d 727,
738 (9th Cir. 1986) (“The Court of Appeals will not ordinarily consider matters on
appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in appellant’s opening brief.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --