WILSON GORRELL V. THOMAS SNEATH, No. 13-17050 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 27 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILSON GORRELL, No. 13-17050 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00554-JLT v. MEMORANDUM* THOMAS C. SNEATH; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted November 18, 2015*** Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Wilson Gorrell, a former federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging violations of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). state law in connection with the testing of a urine sample. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gorrell’s negligence claim because Gorrell failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants breached the duty of care. See Flowers v. Torrance Mem’l Hosp. Med. Ctr., 884 P.2d 142, 145, 147 (Cal. 1994) (elements of professional negligence claim). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gorrell’s defamation claim because Gorrell failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to the essential element of falsity. See Shively v. Bozanich, 80 P.3d 676, 682-83 (Cal. 2003) (elements of defamation). We reject Gorrell’s contentions that the district court failed to notify him of a filing deadline, failed to consider Gorrell’s pro se status, or improperly relied on expert testimony. We do not consider issues that are not supported by argument or clearly and distinctly raised in the opening brief. See Pierce v. Multnomah County, Or., 76 F.3d 1032, 1037 n.3 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument in pro se brief are deemed abandoned); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) 2 13-17050 (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”). AFFIRMED. 3 13-17050

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.