Potter

MEMORANDUM **

Charles Thomas Jackson appeals pro se the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants in his action alleging employment discrimination, retaliation, and involuntary servitude. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Reviewing *352 de novo, Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir.2003), we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed defendant Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) because there is no private cause of action against the EEOC for their handling of an individual’s claims. See Ward v. EEOC, 719 F.2d 311, 313 (9th Cir.1983).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jackson’s various discrimination and retaliation claims because, even assuming Jackson established a prima facie case, he failed to present evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants’ legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for their actions were pretextual. See Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2001); cf. Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115, 1127 (9th Cir.2000).

The district court also properly granted summary judgment on Jackson’s…