Angello

MEMORANDUM **

John (Jack) Angello appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment on partial findings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) in his action claiming that his employer, Northern Marianas College (“NMC”), and others, discriminated and retaliated against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 48 U.S.C. § 1821 (a). We review for clear error the district court’s findings of fact and review de novo its legal conclusions. Dubner v. *274 City and County of S.F., 266 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Angello offered insufficient evidence to show that sex was a motivating factor for termination of his employment as required to show a discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m). Angello also did not offer sufficient evidence of a causal link between the complaints and grievances he lodged and the adverse action taken against him as required for a retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Therefore the district court properly entered judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(c) (“[T]he court may enter judgment against the party on a claim ... that, under the controlling law, can be maintained ... only with…