Case ID: f-appx_234/html/0602-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brian POWER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gordon R. ENGLAND, Secretary, Department of the Nav., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 05-56411.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 11, 2007.
    
    Filed June 14, 2007.
    Andrew M. Schwartz, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Gwendolyn Millicent Gamble, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Civil & Tax Divisions, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: D.W. NELSON, REINHARDT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The Navy established legitimate, performance-based reasons for terminating Power. Assuming, arguendo, that Power made out a prima facie case on his retaliation and disability discrimination claims, he failed to produce any evidence sufficient to support a conclusion that the explanation articulated by the Navy was pretextual. Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.2002). Power makes no argument in his brief regarding his whistleblowing claim and thus has waived that claim. Kohler v. Inter-Tel Techs., 244 F.3d 1167, 1182 (9th Cir.2001). He also failed to identify any procedural error that requires us to disturb the MSPB’s decision. See Sloan v. West, 140 F.3d 1255, 1260 (9th Cir.1998).

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