
    Gregory R. SOUSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONTRACT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION TRUST FUND, a business of unknown form, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-56752.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed March 6, 2012.
    Gregory R. Sousa, Burbank, CA, pro se.
    William Louis Cole, Esquire, Steven Miller Schneider, Esquire, Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gregory R. Sousa appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations his action alleging violations of the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ventura Mobilehome Cmtys. Owners Ass’n v. City of San Buenaventura, 371 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Sousa’s action was barred by the applicable four-year limitations period because Sousa filed it almost ten years after learning that defendant had allegedly miscalculated his seniority date based on his absence for military service. See 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) (setting forth four-year statute of limitation for civil actions arising under an Act of Congress enacted after December 1, 1990); Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6, 8, 102 S.Ct. 28, 70 L.Ed.2d 6 (1981) (per curiam) (claim accrues at “the time of the discriminatory act, not the point at which the consequences of the act become painful.”).

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

Issues not expressly addressed in Sousa’s opening brief are deemed waived. See id.

Sousa’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.
     