Kenneth Barker v. American Express Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH BARKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-16856
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05647-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
APR 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16856
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 of 2 --