FATMATA SESAY OSIAS, AKA Fatmata Sesay v. County of Santa Clara, erroneously sued as Santa Clara County Valley Medical Center

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FATMATA SESAY OSIAS, AKA Fatmata
Sesay,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
erroneously sued as Santa Clara County
Valley Medical Center,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-15140
D.C. No. 5:16-cv-03761-EJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Fatmata Sesay Osias, AKA Fatmata Sesay, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging violations of Title
VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Zetwick
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 17 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15140
v. County of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436, 440 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Osias’s retaliation
claim based on her March 2012 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
charge because Osias failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether defendant’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for its adverse actions were
pretextual. See Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc., 274 F.3d 1276,
1284 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining burden-shifting framework for Title VII
retaliation claims and requirements for establishing pretext); see also Little v.
Windermere Relocation, Inc., 301 F.3d 958, 969 (9th Cir. 2002) (a plaintiff must
offer “specific, substantial evidence of pretext” (citation omitted)).
We reject as unsupported by the record Osias’s contentions regarding the
authenticity of defendant’s evidence and that the district court failed to consider
her evidence at summary judgment.
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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --