Tanya D. Taylor v. Fedex Corporate Services, Inc.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TANYA D. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FEDEX CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-17355
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00150-RCJ-PAL
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert C. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Tanya D. Taylor appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in favor of her former employer in her action alleging race discrimination,
harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
JUN 18 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-17355 2
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d
634, 639 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the discrimination
and retaliation claims because Taylor failed to show that her employer’s proffered
reasons for her poor performance evaluation, failure to receive a merit raise,
counseling and warning letters, and termination were pretextual. See id. at 640-42,
646. Similarly, the district court properly granted summary judgment on the
harassment claim because Taylor failed to show that she was subjected to conduct
severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. See id. at 642-
44.
We do not consider Taylor’s contentions raised for the first time on appeal.
See Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1146
(9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --