Case Name: Robert PYKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARCADIS US, INC., a Colorado corporation; Larry Roth, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-11
Citations: 649 F. App'x 593
Docket Number: No. 14-15835
Parties: Robert PYKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARCADIS US, INC., a Colorado corporation; Larry Roth, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SCHROEDER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 649
Pages: 593–594

Head Matter:
Robert PYKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARCADIS US, INC., a Colorado corporation; Larry Roth, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-15835.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 14, 2016.
Filed May 11, 2016.
Stephen F. Henry, Stephen F. Henry, Esq., Berkeley, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Stacey Alan Campbell, Campbell Litigation, P.C., Denver, CO, Angela J. Rafoth, Littler Mendelson, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WALLACE, SCHROEDER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Robert Pyke appeals from the district court's summary judgment in favor of Appellees ARCADIS US, Inc. (Arcadis) and Larry Roth. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the district court's summary judgment de novo. Ah Quin v. Cty. of Kauai Dept. of Transp., 733 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir.2013). We affirm.
Pyke contends that Arcadis unlawfully retaliated against him for First Amendment protected speech. He argues that two of his communications merit constitutional protection. First, he points to an email he sent to his Arcadis supervisors and Terry Macaulay, a director of the California state-government agency that engaged Arcadis to perform consulting work on a water-management project. In that email, Pyke voiced his disagreement with the agency's decision to exclude two people from participating on the Arcadis team. Second, he circulated to his superiors and the agency two memoranda pointing out perceived flaws with the.agency's approach to the project.
Neither of Pyke's communications merit First Amendment protection. Pyke's email expressing his desire to have the two excluded individuals on his team is'unprotected because he was acting pursuant to his "official duties" in recommending those individuals. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006). His memoranda are likewise unprotected because they were "routine report[s]" dealing with the water-management project on which the agency hired Arcadis as a consultant. Dahlia v. Rodriguez, 735 F.3d 1060, 1075 (9th Cir.2013) (en banc).
We hold that Pyke's communications are unprotected by the First Amendment and, accordingly, we affirm the district court's summary judgment in favor of Appellees.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.