Sarah Lee Davis v. Sacramento County District Attorney's Office

76 F.3d 385 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Sarah Lee DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-16439. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 23, 1996. * Decided Jan. 25, 1996. Before: ALARCON, HALL, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Sarah Lee Davis appeals pro se the district court's judgment for the defendant, Sacramento County District Attorney's Office ("DA's office"), following a bench trial. Davis, an African-American, alleged race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) ("Title VII"), when she was terminated from a temporary clerical position. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. 3 Davis contends that the district court erred by entering judgment for the DA's office because she submitted sufficient evidence to show that she was discriminated against on…