Case Name: Eddie D. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC SILVER STATE DISPOSAL, INC., dba Republic Services of Southern Nevada, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-04
Citations: 586 F. App'x 374
Docket Number: No. 13-15184
Parties: Eddie D. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC SILVER STATE DISPOSAL, INC., dba Republic Services of Southern Nevada, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 586
Pages: 374–375

Head Matter:
Eddie D. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC SILVER STATE DISPOSAL, INC., dba Republic Services of Southern Nevada, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-15184.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
Filed Dec. 4, 2014.
Eddie D. Wilson, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
Dustin L. Clark, Esquire, Fisher & Phillips, LLP, Lisa A. McClane, Jackson Lewis P.C., Elayna J. Youchah, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eddie D: Wilson appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wilson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there was a causal link between his alleged protected activity and defendant's decision to not rehire him. See Westendorf v. W. Coast Contractors of Nev., Inc., 712 F.3d 417, 422 (9th Cir.2013) (setting forth elements of a prima facie case of retaliation and stating that the plaintiff must show that protected conduct was a but-for cause of the adverse employment action); Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough, 323 F.3d 1185, 1197-98 (9th Cir.2003) (decision makers knowledge of protected activity necessary for causation).
We reject Wilson's contentions regarding the district court's exclusion of evidence.
We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.