Case Name: Ruth H. SUYAT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-29
Citations: 360 F. App'x 852
Docket Number: No. 08-15292
Parties: Ruth H. SUYAT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 852–854

Head Matter:
Ruth H. SUYAT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-15292.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 29, 2009.
Ruth H. Suyat, Kualapuu, HI, pro se.
Edric Ming-Kai Ching, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Ruth H. Suyat appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for the United States Postal Service in her action alleging sex discrimination in employment, wrongful termination, and underpaid wages. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 Suyat's sex discrimination claim because she failed to present evidence that the Postal Service's legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for selecting a male candidate instead of her for the open sales clerk position was pretext for sex discrimination. See id. at 642 (affirming summary judgment for employer on claim of employment discrimination because plaintiff failed to show pretext).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the wrongful termination and breach of contract claims because Suyat did not show that she was actually appointed to the position and ob tained contractual or statutory rights to bring such claims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.