Metcalf

MEMORANDUM **

Edward K. Metcalf appeals pro se the district court’s judgment following a bench trial in favor of Anchorage Daily News (“ADN”) in his wrongful termination action alleging he was fired in retaliation for filing a previous lawsuit against ADN. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for clear error findings of fact, Deegan v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 167 F.3d 502 , 508-09 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

The district court did not clearly err in finding that Metcalfs first lawsuit against ADN was not a substantial motivating factor in ADN’s decision to implement new agreements with its carriers, and require all carriers to sign a new contract to continue working for ADN. See id; Knickerbocker v. City of Stockton, 81 F.3d 907, 911 (9th Cir.1996).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Metcalfs untimely motion for a jury trial because Metcalf failed to give any reason for the untimeliness. See Pacific Fisheries Corp. v. HIH Cas. & Gen. Ins., Ltd., 239 F.3d 1000 , 1002 (9th *902 Cir.2001); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1086-87 (9th Cir.2002) (pro se status is not sufficient to grant relief from an untimely jury…