HOOPER v. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Dennis Russell Hooper appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging, among other claims, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Hooper’s ADA claims was proper because Hooper failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants discriminated against Hooper due to his disability, or denied Hooper any public accommodations because of his disability. See Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002) (elements of a Title II ADA claim); see also Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 2007) (elements of a Title III discrimination claim).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.