Case ID: f-appx_430/html/0583-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rosario MARINELLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-17846.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 28, 2011.
    Rosario Marinello, Marina, CA, pro se.
    David Pai, Karen Kiyo Huster, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   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.