Bonner
Bonner v. Union Pacific
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Gary Lynn Bonner appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging defendants caused him emotional distress and violated his civil *778 rights during his termination from Union Pacific. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, Grote v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 905 F.2d 1307, 1309 (9th Cir.1990), and grant of summary judgment, Armstrong v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 139 F.3d 1277, 1278 (9th Cir.1998). We review for abuse of discretion denials of motions to amend the complaint, Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002), and motions to compel discovery, see Childress v. Darby Lumber, Inc., 357 F.3d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bonner’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, because he failed to allege that Union Pacific employees’ negligent actions during the investigation of his illegal activity placed him in a “zone of danger” where he was threatened with imminent physical impact. See Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532,…