John A. Rue; Verna L. Flanagan, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., a Corporation; Doris Watson; Johnmosely; Elaine Bouchard, Defendants-appellees, 142 F.3d 445 (9th Cir. 1998)

MEMORANDUM¹ 

John A. Rue and Verna Flanagan appeal the district court's summary judgment in favor of their former employer, Laidlaw Transit, Inc., in their action alleging that they were wrongfully terminated in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981(Rue), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Flanagan). We affirm.

Rue and Flanagan contend that the district court failed to address their request for an opportunity to cross-examine declarants who submitted affidavits in support of Laidlaw Transit's summary judgment motion. This contention is contradicted by the record. The district court orally denied their request on the ground that they failed to set forth specific facts showing that there was a genuine issue for trial. See Frederick S. Wyle Professional Corp. v. Texaco, Inc., 764 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1985) (nonmoving party cannot rest on the hope of undermining the moving party's credibility at trial to defeat summary judgment).

Rue and Flanagan address no other issues in their opening brief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's summary judgment. See Pierce v. Multnomah County, 76 F.3d 1032, 1037 n. 3 (9th Cir.) (issues not raised in opening brief deemed waived), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S. Ct. 506, 136 L. Ed. 2d 397 (1996).

AFFIRMED.