Tanya Taylor v. Fedex Corporate Services, Inc. , 384 F. App'x 650 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JUN 18 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    TANYA D. TAYLOR,                                 No. 08-17355
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00150-RCJ-PAL
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    FEDEX CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Robert C. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 25, 2010 **
    Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Tanya D. Taylor appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
    in favor of her former employer in her action alleging race discrimination,
    harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28
    *
    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).
    U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 
    349 F.3d 634
    , 639 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment on the discrimination
    and retaliation claims because Taylor failed to show that her employer’s proffered
    reasons for her poor performance evaluation, failure to receive a merit raise,
    counseling and warning letters, and termination were pretextual. See 
    id. at 640-42, 646
    . Similarly, the district court properly granted summary judgment on the
    harassment claim because Taylor failed to show that she was subjected to conduct
    severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. See 
    id.
     at 642-
    44.
    We do not consider Taylor’s contentions raised for the first time on appeal.
    See Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 
    546 F.3d 1142
    , 1146
    (9th Cir. 2008).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     08-17355
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-17355

Citation Numbers: 384 F. App'x 650

Judges: Canby, Thomas, Fletcher

Filed Date: 6/18/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024