Case Name: John W. THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF THE U.S. AIR FORCE, Dr. James G. Roche, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-20
Citations: 81 F. App'x 923
Docket Number: No. 03-55531
Parties: John W. THOMAS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF THE U.S. AIR FORCE, Dr. James G. Roche, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 81
Pages: 923–923

Head Matter:
John W. THOMAS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF THE U.S. AIR FORCE, Dr. James G. Roche, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 03-55531.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 10, 2003.
Decided Nov. 20, 2003.
John W. Thomas, pro se, Moreno Valley, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Constance M. Komoroski, Esq., USLA-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: KOZINSKI, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
John W. Thomas appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment dismissing his employment discrimination action against the Department of the Air Force. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review summary judgment 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 Thomas' race discrimination claim because he failed to rebut defendant's evidence that he was fired due to his substandard performance. See id. at 890.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Thomas' retaliatory discharge claim because he failed to establish a causal link between his participation in protected activity and his discharge. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1064-65 (9th Cir.2002).
The record does not support Thomas' contention that the district court allowed defendant to submit "tainted documents and false affidavits" at summary judgment.
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.