Roach

MEMORANDUM **

Patrick Roach appeals the grant of summary judgment to defendants. We review de novo and must view the evidence in the light most favorable to Roach to determine whether any genuine issues of material fact require adjudication at trial. See Bal-int v. Carson City, 180 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir.1999). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Roach’s defamation claim is based on the concluding paragraph of a memo recording Hunter’s recollection of defendant Jenkins’ oral statements. We agree with the district court that these statements constitute opinion protected under the First Amendment. See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19-21 , 110 S.Ct. 2695 , 111 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990); Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir.1995).

Roach’s claims against Arizona State Retirement System (“Arizona”) are also without merit. His Title VII claim fails because, even if Roach could substantiate his allegations and demonstrate a causal link to the employment action taken against him, he has not shown that it is based on activity protected by Title VII. See Jurado v. Eleven-Fifty Corporation, 813 F.2d 1406, 1411-12 (9th Cir.1987) (dismissing…