U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2011

Marinello v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

Marinello v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided April 28, 2011 · Fletcher, Clifton, Bea
430 F. App'x 583

Counsel

Rosario Marinello, Marina, CA, pro se., David Pai, Karen Kiyo Huster, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Marinello v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Rosario Marinello appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Learned v. City of Bellevue, 860 F.2d 928, 931 (9th Cir. 1988), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Marinello failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he engaged in protected activity, and whether defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decision not to hire Marinello as a correctional counsel- or were a pretext for retaliation. See Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Learned, 860 F.2d at 932 (underlying discrimination must be reasonably perceived as prohibited by Title VII to constitute protected activity).

*584 Marinello’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.