Case Name: Tommie G. PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jamie VANDERVER; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-12
Citations: 259 F. App'x 912
Docket Number: No. 06-36078
Parties: Tommie G. PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jamie VANDERVER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 259
Pages: 912–912

Head Matter:
Tommie G. PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jamie VANDERVER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-36078.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 .
Filed Dec. 12, 2007.
Tommie G. Patterson, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Randall G. Simpson, Esq., Jermain Dunnagan & Owens P.C., Anchorage, AK, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Tommie G. Patterson appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his Title VII action alleging that defendants discriminated against him based on his race and sex, and tampered with his mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Munger v. City of Glasgow Police Dept., 227 F.3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Patterson's Title VII claims, because it correctly concluded that Patterson was an "independent contractor" not an "employee" of Regal Entertainment. See Adcock v. Chrysler Corp., 166 F.3d 1290, 1292 (9th Cir.1999) (Title VII protects employees, but does not protect independent contractors).
Patterson's contention that the district court was biased against him is not supported by the record.
Patterson's remaining contention regarding mail tampering also lacks merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.