Frances F. Shand v. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Regents of the University of California

2 F.3d 1157 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Frances F. SHAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY; Regents of the University of California, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-15244. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 21, 1993. * Decided July 7, 1993. Before CANBY, FERNANDEZ and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Frances F. Shand appeals pro se from the district court's Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of her amended complaint alleging that Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the University of California (collectively "Livermore") violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. Secs. 621-634 . Shand contends the district court erred by finding that she failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and affirm. 3 We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim. Frey v.…