OMOYI MVUEMBA V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, No. 15-55160 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OMOYI MVUEMBA, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-55160 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01126-ODWPLA v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public entity, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Omoyi Mvuemba appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action brought under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. * 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). We affirm. In his opening brief, Mvuemba fails to address how the district court erred in granting summary judgment and, thus, this issue is waived. See Wilcox v. Comm’r, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988) (arguments not raised on appeal by pro se litigant deemed abandoned); see also Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived). We reject as unsupported by the record Mveumba’s contentions that the district court denied him an opportunity to take additional depositions, submit further evidence, and prepare his opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and that his former counsel did not state arguments or submit evidence. We do not consider Mvuemba’s 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 15-55160

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.