MEMORANDUM **
Tri Minh Huynh appeals pro se the district courts grant of summary judgment in his whistleblower retaliation action against Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and other defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Van Asdale v. Intl Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm the district courts judgment.
The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart on Huynhs claims of retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, retaliation under the California Whistleblower Protection Act, and wrongful termination under California law. Wal-Mart amply met its burden of producing evidence that there was a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for Huynhs termination, or that it would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of any protected activity. See id. at 996; Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Intl, 151 Cal. App. 4th 1102, 1109, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 45 (2007). Further, Huynh made no showing of pretext. See Tides v. The Boeing Co., 644 F.3d 809, 816-17 (9th Cir. 2011).
Huynhs motion for reconsideration of the Appellate Commissioners denial of his motion for summary reversal (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied.
AFFIRMED.