Potter

MEMORANDUM **

Jeffrey Miller appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Postmaster General in his Title VII employment discrimination action. We review the district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo, and we review the district court’s compliance with local rules for abuse of discretion. Hauk v. JP Morgan Chase Bank USA, 552 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.2009); United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

Miller correctly argues that a district court may not grant summary judgment merely because an opposing party does not respond. See Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1182 (9th Cir.2003). However, here, the district court stated that it had reviewed the motion and found it meritorious, and we agree. The postmaster was “entitled to judgment as a matter of law” because Miller failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that the legitimate reasons the postmaster offered for the employment actions were pretextual. See Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1108 (9th Cir.2008). The fact that an ALJ had found pretext based on evidence not before the district court does not excuse Miller’s failure to provide…