22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T513,MEMORANDUM Eddie D: Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wilson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there was a causal link between his alleged protected activity and defendant’s decision to not rehire him. See Westendorf v. W. Coast Contractors of Nev., Inc., 712 F.3d 417, 422 (9th Cir.2013) (setting forth elements of a prima facie case of retaliation and stating that the plaintiff must show that protected conduct was a but-for cause of the adverse employment action); Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough, 323 F.3d 1185, 1197-98 (9th Cir.2003) (decision makers knowledge of protected activity necessary for causation). We reject Wilson’s contentions regarding the district court’s exclusion of evidence. We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 , 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T54a,

MEMORANDUM

Eddie D: Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wilson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there was a causal link between his alleged protected activity and defendant’s decision to not rehire him. See Westendorf v. W. Coast Contractors of Nev., Inc., 712 F.3d 417, 422 (9th Cir.2013) (setting forth elements of a prima facie case of retaliation and stating that the plaintiff must show that protected conduct was a but-for cause of the adverse employment action); Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough, 323 F.3d 1185, 1197-98 (9th Cir.2003) (decision makers knowledge of protected activity necessary for causation).

We reject Wilson’s contentions regarding the district court’s exclusion of evidence.

We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 , 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.