Narrative Opinion Summary
Tepliek did not supplement the record with evidence to challenge the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. He acknowledged before the Court that he had no additional evidence to present. As a result, he has waived any claims of prejudice regarding the factual development or review scope. Tepliek failed to demonstrate that his disability prevented him from performing his previous job or any other job. The Court affirmed the ruling, noting that this disposition is not for publication and cannot be cited by courts in this circuit except as allowed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Reference is made to Mongeluzo v. Baxter Travenol Long Term Disability Benefit Plan for context.
Legal Issues Addressed
Disability and Employment Capabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Tepliek failed to demonstrate that his disability prevented him from performing his previous job or any other job, leading to the affirmation of the ruling.
Reasoning: Tepliek failed to demonstrate that his disability prevented him from performing his previous job or any other job.
Non-Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court's disposition is not for publication and cannot be cited by courts in this circuit, except as allowed by specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The Court affirmed the ruling, noting that this disposition is not for publication and cannot be cited by courts in this circuit except as allowed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Waiver of Claims Due to Lack of Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Tepliek waived any claims of prejudice regarding the factual development or review scope by failing to supplement the record with evidence to challenge the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
Reasoning: Tepliek did not supplement the record with evidence to challenge the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.