BRUCE COMMITTE V. OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, No. 15-35386 (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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRUCE EDWARD COMMITTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-35386 D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01341-ST v. MEMORANDUM* OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Janice M. Stewart, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted March 8, 2017*** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Bruce Edward Committe appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. * 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). France v. Johnson, 795 F.3d 1170, 1171 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Committe failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Oregon State University’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for declining to hire him as a professor were pretextual. See id. at 1173-75 (explaining burden shifting framework for analyzing an ADEA claim on summary judgment, and setting forth plaintiff’s burden in raising a genuine dispute of material fact as to pretext). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Committe’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint because the proposed amendments would have been futile. See Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 555 F.3d 1051, 1055, 1057 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “the ADEA precludes the assertion of age discrimination in employment claims, even those seeking to vindicate constitutional rights, under § 1983”). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised 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). Committe’s motion for extraordinary relief (Docket Entry No. 26) is denied. The parties’ motions requesting no oral argument (Docket Entry Nos. 19 and 22) are denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 2 15-35386

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.