Michael Steven SCHAGUNN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sherly GILLAND, individually and as payroll clerk for USF Reddaway; USF Reddaway, Inc., in its corporate capacity as an Oregon corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-35493
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Submitted Sept. 21, 2015. Filed Sept. 25, 2015.
814
Christina D. Arnone, Patricia Konopka, Kansas City, MO, James Barrett, Ater Wynne LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM **
Michael Steven Schagunn appeals pro se from the district court‘s judgment dismissing his action alleging claims arising from his employer‘s decision to withhold federal income taxes from his wages contrary to his instructions. We have jurisdiction under
The district court properly dismissed Schagunn‘s action because Schagunn failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants improperly withheld taxes from his earnings. See id., 780 F.2d at 770 (“[A]n employer is not liable to an employee for complying with its legal duty to withhold tax [under
The district court properly denied Schagunn‘s motion to remand because Schagunn‘s complaint included causes of actions over which the district court had original and supplemental jurisdiction. See Bright, 780 F.2d at 768-71 (setting forth standard of review; district court had original and supplemental jurisdiction over employee‘s claims against his employer for withholding taxes).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action without leave to amend after concluding that amendment would be futile. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend when amendment would be futile).
We do not consider Schagunn‘s contentions regarding the district court‘s award of monetary sanctions because Schagunn failed to file a timely notice of appeal as to
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
We reject Schagunn‘s contentions that the district court affirmed his notices of levy or lien.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
* **Gordon SEES THE GROUND, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.C. EMERSON; Corrections Corporation of America, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-35733
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Submitted Sept. 21, 2015. Filed Sept. 25, 2015.
815
Gordon Sees The Ground, Jr., Shelby, MT, pro se.
Chad Eldon Adams, Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry & Hoven, P.C., Helena, MT, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM **
Gordon Sees the Ground, Jr., a Montana state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court‘s summary judgment in his
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Emerson because plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Emerson was deliberately indifferent to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment ... unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Corrections Corporation of America because plaintiff did not establish a constitutional violation by Emerson. See City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799, 106 S.Ct. 1571, 89 L.Ed.2d 806 (1986) (per curiam).
* **