Hawkins

MEMORANDUM **

Max E. Hawkins appeals pro se the district court’s order granting summary judgment and order denying reconsideration in Hawkins’s action alleging discriminatory and retaliatory discharge. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo summary judgment, Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir.2000), and review for abuse of discretion denial of reconsideration, Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 , 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.

Because Hawkins failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants’ proffered reasons for his termination—that Hawkins lacked knowledge of basic administrative concepts, improperly audited and controlled payroll and personnel documents, lacked good communication with other managers, and could not perform at the level required— were pretextual, the district court properly granted summary judgment on Hawkins’s age discrimination claim. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2002). Hawkins also failed to present sufficient evidence of a causal link between his complaints about discriminatory hiring practices and his termination. See O’Day v.…