Marinello v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation , 430 F. App'x 583 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSARIO MARINELLO, No. 09-17846
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:08-cv-00664-JW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Ware, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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, nondiscriminatory 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.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-17846