Thomas v. Saafir
This text of 327 F. App'x 733 (Thomas v. Saafir) 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
[734]*734MEMORANDUM
Upon de novo review, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the alternative ground that Thomas named the wrong parties. San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1029-30 (9th Cir.2004). Defendants did not have the authority to make the accommodations requested by Thomas. See 15 Cal.Code Regs. § 3211.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
327 F. App'x 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-saafir-ca9-2009.