Case Information
*1 Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Selim Umit Kucuk appeals pro se from the district court ’ s summary judgment in his Title VII employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 *2 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co. , 358 F.3d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Kucuk’s disparate impact discrimination claim because Kucuk failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s facially-neutral accreditation requirement for tenure-track positions caused a significant discriminatory impact on the basis of national origin. See Stout v. Potter , 276 F.3d 1118, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth elements of prima facie case of disparate impact).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kucuk’s request to conduct additional discovery in order to oppose summary judgment because Kucuk failed to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). See Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp ., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review and requirements).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by deeming the expert declarations submitted by Kucuk inadmissible. See Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and stating that “unauthenticated documents cannot be considered in a motion for summary judgment. ”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See *3 Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
Appellee’s opposed motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied. AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See U.S.C. § 636(c).
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).