Case Name: Richard F. REZNAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-19
Citations: 83 F. App'x 968
Docket Number: No. 02-35658; D.C. No. CV-00-00041-f-HRH
Parties: Richard F. REZNAK, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 83
Pages: 968–968

Head Matter:
Richard F. REZNAK, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 02-35658.
D.C. No. CV-00-00041-f-HRH.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
Decided Dec. 19, 2003.
Richard W. Wright, Esq., Fairbanks, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Stephen Cooper, Esq., USAF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fairbanks, AK, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny Reznak’s request for oral argument.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Richard F. Reznak appeals the district court's summary judgment for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in Reznak's action alleging that, among other things, he received a poor performance evaluation in retaliation for filing a grievance with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Reznak's retaliation claim. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1065 (9th Cir.2002). Although Reznak established a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that his 1997 performance review downgraded his promotion status from "advance ahead of all others" to "advance with contemporaries," on the heels of his filing a complaint with the EEOC, he failed to rebut defendant's evidence that the downgrade reflected Reznak's poor customer relations skills and hostility toward management. See id. at n. 10.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.