Case Name: Wesley E. DUNNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-14
Citations: 308 F. App'x 157
Docket Number: No. 07-55958
Parties: Wesley E. DUNNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 308
Pages: 157–158

Head Matter:
Wesley E. DUNNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 07-55958.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Jan. 14, 2009.
Wesley E. Dunning, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Kevin David Jeter, Esq., Los Angeles Community College District, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Wesley E. Dunning appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for the Los Angeles Community College District ("District") in his action raising claims of race and age discrimination in employment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998, 1003 (9th Cir.1985), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Dunning failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the District was seeking applicants for the position he sought during the relevant period of time. See id. at 1005 (explaining that under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show, among other things, that "he applied . for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants") (emphasis added); see also Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P'ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir.2008) (applying McDonnell Douglas framework to claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.