Timothy Staudenmaier v. Orange County Dept of Educatio

MEMORANDUM

Timothy J. Staudenmaier appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P’ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

To the extent Staudenmaier’s ADEA claim was based on events in 2000, the district court properly granted summary judgment because Staudenmaier failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his claim was timely. See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 , 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002) (explaining that “discrete discriminatory acts are not actionable if time barred, even when they are related to acts .alleged in timely filed charges”; therefore, the charge “must be filed within the 180- or 300- day time period after the discrete discriminatory act occurred”). We do not consider the district court’s summary judgment with respect .to any other allegations related to Staudenmaier’s ADEA claim because Staudenmaier does not raise those allegations on appeal.…