Opinion
21-55692
10-18-2022
NATHANIEL HAMPTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 2:19-cv-10700-CBM-MAA for the Central District of California Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Nathaniel Hampton appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his employment action alleging violations of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Dep't of Fair Emp. & Hous. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 642 F.3d 728, 736 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Hampton failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated more favorably, or whether the proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating his employment were pretextual. See Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding that plaintiff's proposed comparators were not similarly situated where "none amassed a record of misconduct comparable to [plaintiff's]"); Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth framework for Title VII discrimination claim and explaining that summary judgment is appropriate where plaintiff did not establish "a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or . . . that the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence" (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).