Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SCOTT M. MCNAIR, No. 05-17335 j
I D.C. No. CV-O3-02119-NVW
Plaintiff 4 Appellant, I
_ V.
3 I JUDGMENT
COUNTY OF MARICOPA; et al.,
,. 5 55 55 Defendants - Appellees. `
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona .
(Phoenix).
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
submitted. j . I
On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is M
AFFIRMED. I
Filed and entered O4/23/07 _ `
giiiiareson
Clerk OI COUU
ATTEST _,
. j JUl-23*42 mu? T T
Case 2:03-cv—02119-NVW Document 95 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 1 of 3

e I
¤ I ‘ FILED
Nor Fon PUBLICATION APR 23 2007
cm-nv A. czmznsou cuanx
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 0-0- 000RT 0F APP€A*-S
. FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
A SCOTT M. MCNAIR, No. 05-17335
Plaintiff- Appellant, D.C. N0. CV-O3-02119-NVW
I MEMoRANDuM*
COUNTY OF MARICOPA; et al.,
» Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
submitted April 16, 2007**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges. . A
Scott M. McNair appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in favor of Maricopa County in McNair’s Title VII action alleging that he was I
subjected to a hostile workplace and retaliation. 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 finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Case 2:03-cv—02119-NVW Document 95 Filed 07/17/2007 Page of 3

U.S.C. §. 1291. After de novo review, Porter v. Calyf Dep ’t of Corrections, 419
F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir. 2005), we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on McNair’s sexual
harassment claim because he failed to establish a prima facie case. See id. at 892
(describing elements of prima facie case of hostile work environment). Summary
M G judgmentjwas also proper on McNair’s retaliation claims because he did not raise
a triable issue as to whether he engaged in ‘°protected activity" that resulted in and if iv C
adverse employment action. See id. at 894 (describing elements of prima facie
case of retaliation); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ("When a motion for summary
judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not
rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading"). ‘
McNair’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
C We deny all pending motions.
AFFIRMED.
.
dun. sl 02007 V
VZ;-bv, ( 9
2
Case 2:03—cv—02119-NVW Document 95 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW

Document 95

Filed 07/17/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW

Document 95

Filed 07/17/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW

Document 95

Filed 07/17/2007

Page 3 of 3