Opinion
No. 19-16593
04-27-2021
AYODELE AKINOLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAVID SEVERNS; MIKE PREMO, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00222-HDM-WGC MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Ayodele Akinola appeals from the district court's February 26, 2019 order granting summary judgment in part, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim related to his employment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barone v. City of Springfield, 902 F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Akinola's retaliation claim arising from alleged adverse employment actions, other than a written reprimand in 2015, because Akinola failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his protected speech was a substantial and motivating factor in any adverse employment action, or whether defendants would have taken the alleged action even absent the protected speech. See id. at 1098 (setting forth five-factor test for First Amendment retaliation claim); Coomes v. Edmonds Sch. Dist. No. 15, 816 F.3d 1255, 1260 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that all of the factors are necessary and failure to meet any one of them is fatal to the plaintiff's case).
AFFIRMED.