James M. Roland v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation

70 F.3d 1279 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. James M. ROLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-55863. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 16, 1995. * Decided Nov. 22, 1995. 1 Before: HUG and LEAVY, Circuit Judges, and MUECKE, ** District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 James M. Roland ("Roland") appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of McDonnell Douglas Corporation ("McDonnell Douglas"). We affirm. 4 Roland argues that the district court improperly granted summary judgment on his 1) age and race discrimination claims in spite of the existence of genuine issues of material fact, 2) contract claims based on an improper application of California law in spite of genuine issues of material fact, and 3) fraud and negligence claims. Roland also contends that the district court improperly denied his discovery motions. 5 In mid-August 1992, the district court set the…