Russell v. State of Cal.

1 F.3d 1247 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Eunice RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; George Deukmejian, Governor, State of California; James Rowland, Director, Department of Corrections; Frank Milner; Rufus Morris; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-55045. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 21, 1993. * Decided Aug. 3, 1993. Before BROWNING, TANG and NORRIS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Eunice Russell appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of the State of California and several state employees (collectively "defendants") in his employment action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000 (e) et seq. Russell alleged that he was discriminated against based on his race while employed as a parole service associate by the California Department of Corrections. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 We review de novo the district court's…