Zito v. Summit Staffing, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 12, 2026
• Docket: 25-5328
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORDAN CHRISTOPHER ZITO, No. 25-5328 D.C. No. 3:25-cv-00350-MMD- Plaintiff - Appellant, CLB v.

SUMMIT STAFFING, INC.; STATE OF MEMORANDUM* ILLINOIS; CITY OF CHICAGO; HUB GROUP, INC.; TAGG LOGISTICS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2026**

Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Jordan Christopher Zito appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

* 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). Because Zito does not challenge the district court’s grounds for dismissal of

his action in his opening brief, we do not consider that decision. See Indep.

Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that

“we will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s

opening brief”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993)

(explaining that issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening

brief are deemed abandoned).

Contrary to Zito’s contentions, the district court was not required to obtain

Zito’s consent to designate a magistrate judge to recommend disposition of the

action, and the magistrate judge acted within her authority by submitting a

recommendation to dismiss the action, which the district court adopted. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Estate of Conners by Meredith v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658

(9th Cir. 1993) (discussing scope of magistrate judge’s authority under

§ 636(b)(1)).

AFFIRMED.

2 25-5328