Case Name: Robin POTERA-HASKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Geoffrey GAMBLE; Allen Yarnell; Peter Fields; Dan Davies; Bozeman, MSU, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-16
Citations: 447 F. App'x 813
Docket Number: No. 10-35778
Parties: Robin POTERA-HASKINS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Geoffrey GAMBLE; Allen Yarnell; Peter Fields; Dan Davies; Bozeman, MSU, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER and NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and SNOW, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 447
Pages: 813–814

Head Matter:
Robin POTERA-HASKINS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Geoffrey GAMBLE; Allen Yarnell; Peter Fields; Dan Davies; Bozeman, MSU, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-35778.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 5, 2011.
Filed Aug. 16, 2011.
Daniel M. Siegel, Dean Royer, Siegel & Yee, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Robin Potera-Haskins, Mcminnville, OR, pro se.
William Anderson Forsythe, Moulton Bellingham PC, Billings, MT, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER and NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and SNOW, District Judge.
The Honorable G. Murray Snow, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Arizona, Phoenix, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Robin Potera-Haskins ("Potera-Has-kins") appeals the district court's denial of a jury trial on her claim under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, and its grant of summary judgment on her 42 U.S.C. § 1988 First Amendment retaliation claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
Potera-Haskins was not entitled to a jury trial on her Title IX claim. With respect to monetary relief, she could recover no more than the liquidated damages she received, and a bench trial was therefore appropriate. See Smith v. Barton, 914 F.2d 1330, 1337 (9th Cir.1990).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Potera-Haskins' First Amendment retaliation claim because her statements were made pursuant to her official duties. See Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.