Case Name: Ching-Tsung CHU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, a/k/a Jack, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-19
Citations: 46 F. App'x 544
Docket Number: No. 01-56356; D.C. No. CV-99-01084-GLT
Parties: Ching-Tsung CHU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, a/k/a Jack, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 46
Pages: 544–545

Head Matter:
Ching-Tsung CHU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, a/k/a Jack, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 01-56356.
D.C. No. CV-99-01084-GLT.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 9, 2002.
Decided Sept. 19, 2002.
Before HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Chin-Tsung Chu appeals pro se the district court's judgment in his wrongful termination action against the U.S. Postal Service alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo summary judgment. Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.
Because Chu failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Postal Service's proffered reasons for his termination were pretextual, the district court properly granted summary judgment on his discrimination claim. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054,1062-63 (9th Cir.2002).
The district court also properly granted summary judgment on Chu's retaliation claim because Chu failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his discipline or termination was in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. See Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 892 (9th Cir.1994).
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.