MEMORANDUM ***

Murguia, an employee of the state of Nevada, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his First Amendment retaliation claim under *535 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ventura Packers, Inc. v. F/V Jeanine Kathleen, 305 F.3d 913, 916 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

A First Amendment retaliation claim requires balancing “the interests of the public employee, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Huppert v. City of Pittsburg, 574 F.3d 696, 702 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and alteration omitted) (overruled on other grounds by Dahlia v. Rodriguez, 735 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc)). The Ninth Circuit employs a sequential five-step test—the “Eng” factors—to evaluate these claims. 1 All of the Eng “factors are necessary, in the sense that failure to meet any one of them is fatal to the plaintiffs case.” Coomes v. Edmonds Sch. Dist. No. 15, 816 F.3d 1255, 1260 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Dahlia, 735 F.3d at 1067 n.4).

The first Eng factor requires the employee to show that he spoke on a matter of public concern. The district court properly found no question of material fact because neither of the two alleged instances of Murguia’s speech was on a matter of public concern. Turner v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 788 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining that speech that deals with individual personnel disputes and grievances and that would be of no relevance to the public’s evaluation of the performance of governmental agencies is generally not of public concern). Unless it is on a matter of public concern, a public employee’s speech enjoys no First Amendment protection. Id. at 1212. Murguia’s First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 therefore fails as a matter of law.

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED.