Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

‘ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL PETRAMALA, No. 04-16639
D.C. No. CV-02-02128-LOA A
Plaintiff- Appellant,
v.
JUDGMENT
CITY OF MESA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix). l
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record trom the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
submitted. l
On consideration whereoi it is now here- ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the judgment ofthe said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
AFFIRMED. .
i Filed and entered Thursday, August 4, 2005 - l
A A rage GPX
cawr ‘
· C}étlc.Gf.€OUrT
@d`TE,5tT-‘ ’—?_.;—
, A ~2»B znus
t l1>v¢4Qlz•»"& E
•·•- Clerk _ _
Case 2:O2—cv—O2128—LOA Document 52 Filed O9/O2/2005 Page 1 of 3

T P A W ,,0 /~2 q—
Nor Pon PUBL1cAT1oN AUG 04 2005 A
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS °AT'J?$-”?= . FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL PETRAMALA, No. O4-16639
Plaintiff — Appellant, D.C. No. CV—02-02128-LOA
v. _
MEMORANDUM"“
CITY OF MESA,
Defendant — Appellee. _ `
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Lawrence O. Anderson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding "
Submitted August l, 2005`"`
Before: A O’-SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
A Michael Petramala appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for
· the City of Mesa in his discrimination action under the Americans with ‘
" This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited
to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
M All parties consented in writing to appear before a magistrate judge.
W The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Case 2:O2—cv—O2128—LOA Document 52 Filed O9/O2/2005 Page 2 of 3

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, alleging that his application for
employment as a police officer was denied on the basis of his disabilitv. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After de novo review, Sanders v. Arneson
Prods., Inc., 91 F.3d 1351, 1353 (9th Cir. 1996), We affirm.
Summary judgment was proper on Petramala’s disability claim because he
failed to produce evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case ot` ` .
discrimination. See id. (describing elements of prima facie case); see also FTC v.
Publ Qg Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that
conclusory, self-serving statements lacking detailed facts and supporting evidence
are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact).
Petrarna1a’s remaining contentions lack merit.
1 AFFIRMED. `
Case 2:O2—cv—O2128—LOA Document 52 Filed O9/O2/2005 Page 3 of 3 (

Case 2:02-cv-02128-LOA

Document 52

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02128-LOA

Document 52

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02128-LOA

Document 52

Filed 09/02/2005

Page 3 of 3