T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T GE NB AO GA O, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. S T AT E OF HA WAI I , DE P AR T ME NT OF THE ATT ORNEY G ENER AL, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 15311 D. C. No . 1 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 4 7 8 - DA EB MK ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f o rth e D is tr ic t o f

H aw a ii D a vi d A l an E z r a , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 8, 2011 ** B efo re: F A R R IS , O ’ S C A N N L A IN , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. G e n b a o G a o ap p e a ls p r o s e f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is a c t i on a l l e gi ng e m pl oy m e ntdi s c r i m i na t i on and r e t a l i a t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on 

# FI LED MA R 25 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 15311 2 unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo. Ch o l la R ea d y Mi x, In c. v. C i vish , 3 8 2 F. 3 d9 6 9 , 9 7 3 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed G ao’ s c l ai m s r ai se d i n h i s f i rs tE qu al E m pl oym entand O pp ortun i ty C om m i ss i on (“ E E O C ”) proceedi ng because he f i l ed th is a c tio n m o r e th an n in e tyd ay s a f te rr e c e ip t o f

th e r ig h t to s u e le tte r . See 42 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 1 6 ( c ) ; E dw a rd s v. O cci den ta l

Ch em . C o rp . , 892 F . 2d 1442, 1445 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( “A n a c tio n b r o u g h t u n d e rT itle V I I m u s t b e f ile dw ith in n in e ty d ay s o f r e c e ip t o f

ar ig h t to s u e le tte rf

r o m th e E E O C o rap p r o p r ia te s ta te agency . ”) . T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed the di sc ri m i nat i on cl ai m because G ao fa i l ed t o al l ege f

ac t s s uffi ci entt o st at e acl ai m for r el i ef . See al so A ba gn i ni n v. A M V A CCh em . Co rp . , 545 F . 3d 733, 742 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( c onc l us orya l l e ga t i ons of law ar e in s u f

f ic ie n t to d e f

e at am o tio n to d is m is s f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im ) ; se e al so V asqu ezv. Cnt

y. of L os A ng eles , 349 F . 3d 634, 646 ( 9th C i r . 2003) (di sc ussi ng the three pron gs for apri m a f ac i e c as e of T i t l e V II di sc ri m i nat i on ). T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed G ao’ s r et al i at i on cl ai m because G ao f a i l e d t o a l l e ge f

a c t s s how i ng tha the w a s t e rm i na t e d be c aus e he e nga ge d i n a p r o te c te da c tiv ity . Se e L e arne d v . C i t yof B e l le v ue , 86 0 F . 2d 92 8, 93 2-33 (9th C i r.10- 15311 3 1988) ( T i t l e V I I pr ot e c t s onl ythos e e m pl oy e e s w ho c l a i m r e t a l i a t i on r e s ul t i ng f r o m th e iro p p o s itio n to d is c r im in a tio n u n d e rT itle V I I ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt a ls o p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dth e T itle V I c la im b e c au s e G a o d id n o t e s tab lis h th a t th e H aw a ii A tto rn e yG e n e r a l’s O f f ic e ’s p r im aryo b

je c tiv e w a s to p r o v id e e m p lo y m e n t. See 42 U . S . C . § 2000d. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed G ao’ s A m er i cans w i th D i sabi l i t i es A ct (“ A D A ”) cl ai m o n E l ev en th A m en d m en tg ro u n d s. Se e B d. of T rs . of the U ni v . of A la . v . G a rr e tt , 531 U . S . 356, 360 ( 2001) ( hol di ng tha ts t a t e s ar e i m m une f r om pri vat e s ui t s broug hti n federa l courtun der T i t l e I of the A D A ). G ao’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. A FFI R M ED .