Tagupa

MEMORANDUM ***

William E.H. Tagupa appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for the United States Navy in his employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1123 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Tagupa failed to raise a triable issue that the Navy’s legitimate and nondiseriminatory reason for not hiring Tagupa as Assistant Counsel — two negative job references — was pretext for an unlawful motive. See id. at 1124 (affirming summary judgment where plaintiff did not raise a genuine issue of material fact to rebut the employer’s nondiscriminatory reason for adverse employment decision).

Tagupa failed to raise a triable issue that he was “clearly superior” to those selected. See Schuler v. Chronicle Broad. Co., 793 F.2d 1010 , 1011 (9th Cir.1986) (plaintiffs subjective personal judgments of qualifications do not raise genuine issues of material fact). Tagupa also failed to raise a triable issue that the Navy used subjective criteria “to mask discriminatory motives.” See Blue v. Widnall, 162 F.3d 541, 546 (9th Cir.1998)…