Daniel Sandoval v. U.S. Department of the Army

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 21, 2018
• Docket: 17-36027
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL M. SANDOVAL, No. 17-36027

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05034-RBL

v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; ARMY BOARD CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2018**

Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Daniel M. Sandoval appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his action challenging the Army Board for Correction of Military

Records’s (“ABCMR”) denial of Sandoval’s application for correction of his

* 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). military record. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

the district court’s decision on cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay

Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011).

We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants

because Sandoval failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

the ABCMR’s decision to deny his application was arbitrary, capricious, or not

supported by substantial evidence. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2); Guerrero v. Stone, 970

F.2d 626, 628 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard governing judicial review of

ABCMR decisions).

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).

Sandoval’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 14) is

denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 17-36027