LAW.coLAW.co

Rosario MARINELLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, Defendant-Appellee

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit2011-04-28No. No. 09-17846
430 F. App'x 583

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority 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.