Case Name: Tanya D. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDEX CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-18
Citations: 384 F. App'x 650
Docket Number: No. 08-17355
Parties: Tanya D. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDEX CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 384
Pages: 650–651

Head Matter:
Tanya D. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDEX CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-17355.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 18, 2010.
Tanya D. Taylor, Henderson, NV, pro se.
Barak Jonathan Babcock, Peter D. Blumberg, Federal Express Corporation, Memphis, TN, Anthony L. Martin, Esquire, Lewis and Roca LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Tanya D. Taylor appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in favor of her former employer in her action alleging race discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the discrimination and retaliation claims because Taylor failed to show that her employer's proffered reasons for her poor performance evaluation, failure to receive a merit raise, counseling and warning letters, and termination were pretextual. See id. at 640-42, 646. Similarly, the district court properly granted summary judgment on the harassment claim because Taylor failed to show that she was subjected to conduct severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. See id. at 642-44.
We do not consider Taylor's contentions raised for the first time on appeal. See Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Conocophillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.