USPS

MEMORANDUM

Wilfredo A. Golez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action alleging violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), Title VII, and the Rehabilitation Act arising out of his termination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s conclusion of law and for clear error its findings of fact following a bench trial. Milicevic v. Fletcher Jones Imports, Ltd., 402 F.3d 912, 915 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court did not clearly err when it credited the testimony of other witnesses over Golez’s testimony and found that Golez failed to follow defendants’ attendance and FMLA-leave policies in connection with eleven incidents of unscheduled tardiness and an unscheduled absence from work. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(6) (“Findings of fact ... must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and the reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the witnesses’ credibility.”); Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 , 105 S.Ct. 1504 , 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (“If the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record, the court of appeals may not…