Kenneth Barker v. American Express Company
Kenneth Barker v. American Express Company
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KENNETH BARKER, No. 17-16856 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05647-WHA v. MEMORANDUM* AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Kenneth Barker appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging various fraud and tort claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 2009). 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).
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Barker failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant had any involvement in the alleged misconduct. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (“When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”); FTC v. Publ’g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A conclusory, self-serving affidavit, lacking detailed facts and any supporting evidence, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record Barker’s contentions that the district court resolved disputed facts or was biased against him.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-16856
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.