
    David DAGER; Greg Iiames; Danny Boyd, and other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, a body politic, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-15356.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 26, 2010.
    
    Filed May 28, 2010.
    William B. Aitchison, Aitchison & Vick, Portland, OR, Anthony J. Coury, Esquire, Michael Napier PC, Las Vegas, NV, Michael Napier, Esquire, Napier, Abdo, Coury & Baillie, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, Breanne Michelle Sheetz, Aitchison & Vick, Inc., Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Laurent R.G. Badoux, Michael Lehet, John Mark Ogden, Littler Mendelson, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Dager, Greg Iiams, Danny Boyd, and other similarly situated police officers in Phoenix, Arizona (together “Dager”) appeal from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the City of Phoenix, holding that donning and doffing required police uniforms and protective gear is not compensable work under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir.2009). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

This appeal is squarely controlled by Bamonte v. City of Mesa, 598 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir.2010). There, as here, appellants — -police officers in Mesa, Arizona-argued that time spent donning and doffing uniforms and protective gear at the beginning and the end of the workday was compensable under the FLSA. Id. at 1219. There, as here, the defendant municipality maintained lockers at the stations for patrol officers for storage of uniforms and equipment, but did not require that the officers change at the work site. Id. at 1220. Analyzing the governing statutes, and giving Skidmore deference to a 2006 Department of Labor memorandum discussing the compensability of donning and doffing gear and clothing at home, we held in Bamonte, id. at 1233, that because “[n]o requirement of law, rule, the employer, or the nature of the work mandates donning and doffing at the employer’s premises, and none of the other factors articulated in Alvarez [v. IBP, Inc., 339 F.3d 894 (9th Cir.2003),] weigh in favor of a conclusion of compensability,” the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Mesa.

Dager offers no material facts to distinguish this case from Bamonte. Accordingly, the district court’s summary judgment is affirmed.

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