MEMORANDUM **

Jose Pablo Martinez petitions pro se for review of a final order of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) in the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer dismissing Martinez’s complaint alleging unfair immigration-related employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(i)(1). We review de novo the ALJ’s conclusions of law and for substantial evidence the ALJ’s findings of fact. Mester Mfg. Co. v. INS, 879 F.2d *574 561, 565 (9th Cir. 1989). We deny the petition for review.

The ALJ correctly granted a summary decision as to Martinez’s claims of discriminatory and retaliatory discharge because Martinez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Superi- or Linen’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and nonretaliatory reasons for discharging him were pretextual and whether a causal link existed between his protected activity and his subsequent discharge. See Villegas-Valenzuela v. INS, 103 F.3d 805, 812 (9th Cir. 1996) (setting forth the standard for summary decision); see also Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 849 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[Individuals are similarly situated when they have similar jobs and display similar conduct.”); Knickerbocker v. City of Stockton, 81 F.3d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[A]n inference [of retaliation based on the timing of adverse action] is not compelled where other evidence provides a reasonable basis for inferring that adverse action was not retaliatory.”).

We construe Martinez’s Motion to Dismiss the Respondent’s Answering Brief as a motion to strike the answering brief, and we deny the motion because Superior Linen filed its answering brief in accordance with the applicable rules. Cf. 9th Cir. R. 28-l(a).

We deny as procedurally improper Superior Linen’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, set forth in its opposition to Martinez’s motion. See 9th Cir. R. 39-1.6.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.