ROBERT STRICKLAND V. GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK, No. 15-15971 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 7 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT EARL STRICKLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-15971 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02774-BSB MEMORANDUM* GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Bridget S. Bade, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted October 25, 2016*** Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Robert Earl Strickland appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action under the American with Disabilities Act * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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). (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Strickland failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the release agreement that Strickland signed was invalid. See Stroman v. W. Coast Grocery Co., 884 F.2d 458, 462-63 (9th Cir. 1989) (a release of claims is valid if it is voluntary, deliberate, and informed); see also Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 389 F.3d 840, 848 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding settlement agreement releasing ADA claims where plaintiff failed to establish that the agreement was procured by duress or any other basis that would render it invalid). We do not consider issues or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 15-15971

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.