Enright
Enright v. Solar Turbines Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Paul Enright appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment order dismissing his claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against his former employer. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Humphrey v. Mem’l Hosps. Assoc., 239 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
*549 Enright contends the district court erred by finding he was not substantially limited in a major life activity due to migraines caused by exposure to chemical fumes. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (2). En-right’s letters from examining physicians and occupational rehabilitation and retraining records show some level of impairment, but they do not show a substantial limitation on his ability to engage in work. See Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 , 122 S.Ct. 681, 691 , 151 L.Ed.2d 615 (2002). Further the district court properly determined that Enright’s vocational rehabilitation counsel- or did not qualify as an expert witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. See Desrosiers v. Flight Int’l of Fla., 156 F.3d 952 , 960-61 (9th Cir.1998).