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:T4a2,MEMORANDUM Tamara Tricia Roberson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment, in her employment action alleging racial discrimination in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1257 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Roberson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not interviewing or hiring Roberson for the position were pre-textual. See Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt, Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155-56, 1158 (9th Cir.2010) (providing framework for analyzing a discrimination claim under Title VII); see also Earl v. Nielsen Media Research,. Inc., 658 F.3d 1108, 1112-13 (9th Cir.2011) (discussing ways plaintiff can demonstrate pretext and explaining that, although plaintiffs burden is not onerous, plaintiff must produce specific and substantial facts to create a triable dispute as to pretext). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. •24:T4cf,

MEMORANDUM

Tamara Tricia Roberson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment, in her employment action alleging racial discrimination in violation of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1257 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Roberson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not interviewing or hiring Roberson for the position were pre-textual. See Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt, Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155-56, 1158 (9th Cir.2010) (providing framework for analyzing a discrimination claim under Title VII); see also Earl v. Nielsen Media Research,. Inc., 658 F.3d 1108, 1112-13 (9th Cir.2011) (discussing ways plaintiff can demonstrate pretext and explaining that, although plaintiffs burden is not onerous, plaintiff must produce specific and substantial facts to create a triable dispute as to pretext).

AFFIRMED.

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