USA V. DALE DOMINO, No. 15-16211 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-16211 D.C. No. 3:12-cv-02426-VC v. MEMORANDUM* DALE DOMINO, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Vince G. Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Dale Domino appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in the United States’s action to collect unpaid federal reinsured student loans. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. United States v. Falcon, 805 F.3d 873, 875 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm. * 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). The district court properly granted summary judgment for the United States because Domino failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to his liability for the indebtedness alleged in the Certificates of Indebtedness. See id. at 876 (setting forth prima facie case and parties’ respective burdens on summary judgment in an action brought by the United States to recover unpaid federally reinsured student loans). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Domino’s untimely motion for discovery because Domino failed to show what material facts would have been discovered that would have precluded summary judgment. See Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 412 (9th Cir. 1988) (setting forth standard of review and recognizing that “[t]he burden is on the nonmoving party . . . to show what material facts would be discovered that would preclude summary judgment”). We reject as without merit Domino’s contentions that the district court was required to appoint counsel for his entire action because Domino did not move for appointment of new counsel after his counsel withdrew. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 15-16211
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
