Chidi Anunka v. Amazon Service Int'l, Inc.
This text of Chidi Anunka v. Amazon Service Int'l, Inc. (Chidi Anunka v. Amazon Service Int'l, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHIDI N. ANUNKA, No. 22-35094
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-06252-BHS
v. MEMORANDUM* AMAZON SERVICE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Chidi N. Anunka appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his action alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(“ADEA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Shelley v. Geren, 666 F.3d. 599, 604 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Anunka’s ADEA
claims because Anunka failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See
29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1) (ADEA plaintiff must file a timely charge with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission before commencing a civil action).
We do not consider claims that Anunka failed to allege in his complaint. See
Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 969 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming
summary judgment where the complaint did not give fair notice of the factual basis
for a claim raised for the first time in opposition to summary judgment).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Anunka’s motion for relief (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 22-35094
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Chidi Anunka v. Amazon Service Int'l, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chidi-anunka-v-amazon-service-intl-inc-ca9-2023.