Roderick v. Flowers v. City of Los Angeles

36 F.3d 1102 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Roderick V. FLOWERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-56491. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 20, 1994. * Decided Sept. 22, 1994. Before: SNEED, WIGGINS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Roderick Flowers appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Los Angeles (City) in his employment discrimination action alleging race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000e to 2000e-2(a)(1) (1988) (Title VII). Flowers contends that he was denied vocational rehabilitation services, benefits and transfers under City programs because of his race. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. Lindahl v. Air France, 930 F.2d 1434, 1436 (9th Cir.1991). Viewing the evidence in the light most…