
    Barbara Stuart ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TACOMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-35954.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 7, 2014.
    
    Filed April 14, 2014.
    Barbara A. Stuart Robinson, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
    Thomas Guy Robinson O’Neill, AGWAOffice of the Washington Attorney General, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Barbara Stuart Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her discrimination action under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 192 F.3d 807, 817 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Robinson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was qualified for re-enrollment to the college, and whether she was denied re-enrollment because of her disability. See E.R.K. v. Haw. Dep’t of Educ., 728 F.3d 982, 992 (9th Cir.2013) (listing the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination under Title II of the ADA and explaining the burden of persuasion on the “otherwise qualified” element); Wong, 192 F.3d at 822 (discussing the definition of “qualified”); see also Wash. State Commc’n Access Project v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 173 Wash.App. 174, 293 P.3d 413, 421-22 (2013) (elements of prima facie case of discrimination under the WLAD).

We reject Robinson’s contentions concerning judicial bias, set forth in her September 11, 2013 notice, as unsupported by the record.

Tacoma Community College’s motion for judicial notice, filed on April 26, 2013, is granted.

Robinson’s motion for judgment, filed on July 12, 2013, is denied.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     