Petramala v. City of Mesa
This text of 140 F. App'x 750 (Petramala v. City of Mesa) 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
Michael Petramala appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for the City of Mesa in his discrimination action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, alleging that [751]*751his application for employment as a police officer was denied on the basis of his disability. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After de novo review, Sanders v. Arneson Prods., Inc., 91 F.3d 1351, 1353 (9th Cir.1996), we affirm.
Summary judgment was proper on Petramala’s disability claim because he failed to produce evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See id. (describing elements of prima facie case); see also FTC v. Publ’g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that conclusory, self-serving statements lacking detailed facts and supporting evidence are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact).
Petramala’s remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
140 F. App'x 750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petramala-v-city-of-mesa-ca9-2005.