Mai-Trang Nguyen v. Starbucks Coffee Corporation

418 F. App'x 606

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Mai-Trang Thi Nguyen appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1218 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Nguyen did not present any relevant evidence in opposition to summary judgment, and thus, failed to demonstrate that there were any genuine issues of material fact as to her claims. See id. at 1218-19 (noting that even for pro se litigants, “[a] district court does not have a duty to search for evidence that would create a factual dispute”).

Nguyen’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We do not consider Nguyen’s contentions raised for the first time on appeal. See Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.