MEMORANDUM ***

Edgardo Loyola appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging age and gender discrimination and harassment in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and Title VII. *799 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Loyola’s age and gender discrimination claims because Loyola failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he performed his job satisfactorily, or whether the U.S. Postal Service’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating him were pretex-tual. See Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P’ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2008) (ADEA); Leong, 347 F.3d at 1124 (Title VII).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Loyola’s harassment claim because Loyola failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the alleged conduct was because of his age or gender, or was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment. See Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir. 2004).

Loyola’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We do not consider Loyola’s contentions raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.