Court Opinion

ID: 716305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-04-17 07:02:23+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:07.049384
License: Public Domain

81 F.3d 167
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.Ann COTTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 95-15066.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 26, 1996.*Decided March 29, 1996.

Before:  GOODWIN, WIGGINS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.

1
MEMORANDUM**

2
Ann Cotter appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of the City and County of San Francisco in Cotter's action alleging that she was subjected to a hostile work environment because of her gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).   We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.   We review de novo, Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 937 (1990), and affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court's memorandum and order, filed on December 16, 1994.1

3
AFFIRMED.

*
 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.   Fed.R.App.P. 34(a);  9th Cir.R. 34-4

**
 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

1
 Cotter's remaining claims for relief are without merit