Opinion
No. 18-15962
10-31-2018
COLLEEN DENISE WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, California, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00071-JD MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
James Donato, District Judge, Presiding Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Colleen Denise Walker appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing her employment action under Title VII and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ("USERRA") alleging discrimination and hostile work environment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Walker's action because Walker failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 640-42 (9th Cir. 2004) (elements of discrimination and hostile work environment claims under Title VII); Leisek v. Brightwood Corp., 278 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2002) (elements of a discrimination claim under USERRA).
AFFIRMED.