Marinello v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

430 F. App'x 583

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 28, 2011
• Docket: 09-17846
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Rosario Marinello appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Learned v. City of Bellevue, 860 F.2d 928, 931 (9th Cir.1988), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Marinello failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he engaged in protected activity, and whether defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision not to hire Marinello as a correctional counsel- or were a pretext for retaliation. See Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir.2000); see also Learned, 860 F.2d at 932 (underlying discrimination must be reasonably perceived as prohibited by Title VII to constitute protected activity).

Marinello’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.