Cambra

MEMORANDUM *

The district court did not err in holding that Cambra failed to make a pri- *491 ma facie case of age discrimination as to the six positions for which he applied. Because two positions were filled by persons who were not substantially younger than Cambra, their selection over Cambra did not give rise to the inference of age discrimination necessary to establish a prima facie case. Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P’ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1208-09 (9th Cir.2008). The district court did not err in granting summary judgment as to the four unfilled positions, because Cambra failed to show Chevron “continued to seek applicants from persons of [his] qualifications.” McGinest v. GTE Service Corp., 360 F.3d 1103, 1137 (9th Cir.2004). Cambra’s unsupported belief that one of the unfilled positions was subsequently filled is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026 , 1028 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)).

Nor did the district court err in determining Cambra failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination for the…