Eddie Wilson v. Republic Silver State Disposal

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 04 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDDIE D. WILSON, No. 13-15184
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01156-KJD-
VCF
v.
REPUBLIC SILVER STATE DISPOSAL, MEMORANDUM*
INC., DBA Republic Services of Southern
Nevada,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Eddie D. Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234,
*
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).
1239 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wilson failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there was a causal link
between his alleged protected activity and defendant’s decision to not rehire him.
See Westendorf v. W. Coast Contractors of Nev., Inc., 712 F.3d 417, 422 (9th Cir.
2013) (setting forth elements of a prima facie case of retaliation and stating that the
plaintiff must show that protected conduct was a but-for cause of the adverse
employment action); Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough, 323 F.3d 1185, 1197-98
(9th Cir. 2003) (decision makers’ knowledge of protected activity necessary for
causation).
We reject Wilson’s contentions regarding the district court’s exclusion of
evidence.
We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-15184