Edington

MEMORANDUM **

Daniel C. Edington and his wife Noreen Edington appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in their action alleging violations of the *890 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, the Equal Protection Clause, and various federal criminal statutes. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims because plaintiffs did not raise a triable issue as to whether Yavapai County employees discriminated against Daniel Edington due to a perception that Mr. Edington was disabled. See Weinreich v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transp. Authority, 114 F.3d 976, 978-79 (9th Cir.1997) (“To prove a public program or service violates Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show (1) he is a ‘qualified individual with a disability’; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity’s services, programs or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) such…