MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Kale Vorak appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim arising out of the filing of prison grievances. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Vorak failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with a retaliatory motive or whether there was an absence of legitimate correctional goals for defendants’ conduct. See id. at 1269 (setting forth the elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[M]ere speculation that defendants acted out of retaliation is not sufficient.”); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806-07 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that it is the plaintiffs burden to prove the absence of a legitimate correctional goal and that courts “should afford appropriate deference and flexibility to prison officials” when evaluating proffered legitimate goals (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.