MEMORANDUM ***

Sam Hout appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action alleging discrimination, breach of contract, and tort claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hensley v. United States, 531 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 2008); Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

•The district court properly granted summary judgment on the national origin and age discrimination claims because Hout failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the Department of Agriculture’s legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring him into a permanent position was pretext for discrimination. See Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming summary judgment on Ti-tie VII claims where the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue as to whether the employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action was pretext for discrimination); see also Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1994) (stating that the standard for analyzing Title VII discrimination claims applies to claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act).

The district court properly dismissed the nondiscrimination claims as time-barred. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401.

AFFIRMED.