Raul Escandon v. Los Angeles County

MEMORANDUM

Raul Escandon appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Los Angeles County, the County’s Department of Public Works (“DPW”), the County’s Department of Human Resources, and William T. Fujioka (collectively, “the County”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Escandon failed to provide sufficient evidence that his “[ojpposition, pleadings, and submissions adequately showed that genuine triable issues remained as to material facts.” See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (“[Sjummary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories ... show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). On de novo review, Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Stanewich, 142 F.3d 1145, 1147 (9th Cir.1998), we conclude that the district court correctly determined that Escandon filed unauthenticated and uncorroborated documents, some irrelevant, and others not part of his moving papers. Escandon provides no evidence demonstrating the…