MARINELLO v. CAL. DEPT. OF CORR. REHAB

MEMORANDUM

Rosario Marinello appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his employment action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Learned v. City of Bellevue, 860 F.2d 928, 931 (9th Cir. 1988), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Marinello failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he engaged in protected activity, and whether defendant's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its decision not to hire Marinello as a correctional counselor were a pretext for retaliation. See Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Learned, 860 F.2d at 932 (underlying discrimination must be reasonably perceived as prohibited by Title VII to constitute protected activity).

Marinello's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.