Case Name: Sam HOUT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas J. VILSACK, Secretary, Department of Agriculture; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-20
Citations: 376 F. App'x 779
Docket Number: No. 08-56380
Parties: Sam HOUT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas J. VILSACK, Secretary, Department of Agriculture; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 779–780

Head Matter:
Sam HOUT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas J. VILSACK, Secretary, Department of Agriculture; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-56380.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 20, 2010.
Sam Hout, Laguna Hills, CA, pro se.
David A. Dejute, Office of U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, David B. Simpson, Esquire, Wolflick & Simpson, Glendale, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Thomas J. Vilsack is substituted for his predecessor, Edward T. Schafer, as Secretary of Agriculture, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sam Hout appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in his action alleging discrimination, breach of contract, and tort claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hensley v. United States, 531 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir.2008); Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
•The district court properly granted summary judgment on the national origin and age discrimination claims because Hout failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the Department of Agriculture's legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring him into a permanent position was pretext for discrimination. See Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1124-25 (9th Cir.2003) (affirming summary judgment on Ti-tie VII claims where the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue as to whether the employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action was pretext for discrimination); see also Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir.1994) (stating that the standard for analyzing Title VII discrimination claims applies to claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act).
The district court properly dismissed the nondiscrimination claims as time-barred. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.