Charlotte Weatherford v. Nevada Rural Housing Authority
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Charlotte Weatherford appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her action brought under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and other federal laws. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Weatherford’s discrimination claims under the FHA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act because Weatherford failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants discriminated against her on the basis of a disability. See Giebeler v. M & B Assocs., 343 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir.2003) (elements of disability discrimination claim under FHA); Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir.2002) (elements of disability discrimination claim under Rehabilitation Act).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Weatherford’s retaliation claim under the FHA because Weath-erford failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants engaged in any coercion,…