Sam Hout v. Mike Johanns , 376 F. App'x 779 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAM HOUT, No. 08-56380
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 8:06-cv-00773-VBF-
RNB
v.
THOMAS J. VILSACK,* Secretary, MEMORANDUM **
Department of Agriculture; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010 ***
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
*
Thomas J. Vilsack is substituted for his predecessor, Edward T.
Schafer, as Secretary of Agriculture, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
**
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)
Sam Hout appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action
alleging discrimination, breach of contract, and tort claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hensley v. United States, 531 F.3d
1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 2008); Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639
(9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the national origin
and age discrimination claims because Hout failed to raise a triable issue as to
whether the Department of Agriculture’s legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason
for not hiring him into a permanent position was pretext for discrimination. See
Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming summary
judgment on Title VII claims where the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue as to
whether the employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse
employment action was pretext for discrimination); see also Wallis v. J.R. Simplot
Co., 26 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1994) (stating that the standard for analyzing Title
VII discrimination claims applies to claims under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act).
The district court properly dismissed the nondiscrimination claims as time-
barred. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401.
AFFIRMED.
2 08-56380