Dywane Stonum v. Cch Computax Inc.

34 F.3d 1073 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Dywane STONUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CCH COMPUTAX INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-55832. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 3, 1994. * Decided Aug. 12, 1994. Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, HUG and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Dywayne Carl Stonum appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of CCH Computax, Inc. (Computax) in his action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq. (Title VII) alleging that Computex terminated his employment because of his race (Black). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and affirm. 3 We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment to determine whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Sengupta v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., 804 F.2d 1072, 1074 (9th Cir.1986). Summary judgment is…