Clifford DILBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Defendant-Appellee, 402 F. App'x 234

MEMORANDUM Clifford Dilbert appeals pro se from the district court’s

summary judgment in his employment action alleging disability and age discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for appointment of counsel. Johnson v. U.S. Treasury Dep’t, 27 F.3d 415, 416 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dilbert’s motion for appointment of counsel given the unlikeliness of success on the merits. See Johnson, 27 F.3d at 417 (appointment of counsel in employment action); Terrell v.

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (28 U.S.C. § 1915 requires exceptional circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dilbert’s motion to compel and requests for a continuance of the

summary judgment motion to obtain further discovery. See Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757, 768 n. 10 (9th Cir.2008) (setting forth standard of review). On appeal, Dilbert does not challenge the merits of the grant of

summary judgment. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) (“[Arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”). Dilbert’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.