Donald Bennett v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
This text of 363 F. App'x 438 (Donald Bennett v. Eric H. Holder Jr.) 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
MEMORANDUM **
Donald E. Bennett appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging disability discrimination in employment by the United States Marshals Service. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bennett’s Rehabilitation Act claim because Bennett, did not timely exhaust his administrative remedies, a prerequisite to filing suit. See id.; Boyd v. U.S. Postal Service, 752 F.2d 410, 414-15 (9th Cir.1985) (affirming dismissal of Rehabilitation Act claim for failure to exhaust, and explaining that the time period for contacting an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor “begins to run when the facts that would support a charge of discrimination would have been apparent to a similarly situated person with a reasonably prudent regard for his rights”).
Because Bennett develops no argument concerning the district court’s dismissal of his other claims, we do not address those *439 determinations. See Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1176 (9th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
363 F. App'x 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-bennett-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2009.