Tammy Callahan v. Washoe County School District;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TAMMY CALLAHAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-16755
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00200-LRH-
WGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Tammy Callahan appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
her employment action alleging discrimination in violation of federal and state law,
including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R.
* 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
JUN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-16755
Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Callahan’s ADEA claim as time-
barred. See Laguaglia v. Rio Hotel & Casino, Inc., 186 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir.
1999) (Nevada is a “deferral state” in which claimants have 300 days to institute
proceedings with their state anti-discrimination agency); see also 29 U.S.C.
§ 626(d)(1)(B) (charges under the ADEA “shall be filed . . . within 300 days after
the alleged unlawful practice occurred, or within 30 days after receipt by the
individual of notice of termination of proceedings under State law, whichever is
earlier”).
We reject as without merit Callahan’s contentions regarding judicial
estoppel, laches, the continuing violation doctrine, and ineffective assistance of
counsel.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --