Case Name: Glenn DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF TUCSON, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-06-13
Citations: 37 F. App'x 315
Docket Number: No. 01-17102; D.C. No. CV-00-00032-WDB
Parties: Glenn DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF TUCSON, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 37
Pages: 315–315

Head Matter:
Glenn DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF TUCSON, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 01-17102.
D.C. No. CV-00-00032-WDB.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2002.
Decided June 13, 2002.
Before O’SCANNLAIN, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Because the panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, Davis' request for oral argument is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Glenn Davis appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment dismissing his Title VII action alleging race, national origin, gender, religion and disability discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's summary judgment, Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Davis's Title VII claims because Davis failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his employer terminated him due to a discriminatory or retaliatory motive. See Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Comm. College Dist., 934 F.2d 1104, 1109-10 (9th Cir.1991) (discrimination); Hashimoto v. Dalton, 118 F.3d 671, 679 (9th Cir.1997) (retaliation).
Davis's remaining contentions lack merit.
AH outstanding motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.