Case Name: Phil PLEASANT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dick ZAIS and City of Yakima, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-06
Citations: 399 F. App'x 201
Docket Number: No. 08-35958
Parties: Phil PLEASANT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dick ZAIS and City of Yakima, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 201–202

Head Matter:
Phil PLEASANT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dick ZAIS and City of Yakima, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-35958.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Oct. 6, 2010.
Phil Pleasant, Jr., Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
Kenneth W. Harper, Menke Jackson Beyer Ehlis & Harper, LLP, Yakima, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, 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
Phil Pleasant, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 1983 action alleging racial discrimination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lindsey v. SLT Los Angeles, LLC, 447 F.3d 1138, 1144 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because it is undisputed that Pleasant, an independent contractor, did not complete the project that he was hired to perform, and he failed to present evidence showing that the City's hiring of another contractor to complete the work was based on racial discrimination. See id. (plaintiff must satisfy the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination). Accordingly, Pleasant failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants discriminated against him based on race.
Pleasant's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.