Plummer

MEMORANDUM **

Edward Plummer, Jr. appeals pro se the district court’s grant of summary judg *735 ment in favor of Mike Pearlman and Larry Malm, Plummer’s supervisors at the California Department of Health Services (DHS), in Plummer’s 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983 action alleging claims for retaliation, racial discrimination, and a hostile work environment. Plummer also appeals the district court’s award of costs to Pearlman and Malm of $1,800.60. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013 , 1019 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

Plummer presented insufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact whether the reasons given in the Notice of Dismissal were pretextual. While Malm did not believe that Plummer had assaulted Chen and thought dating Chen might be permissible, he did believe that Plummer had had a sexual relationship with Chen and promised her employment. Therefore, Plummer did not produce evidence showing that the reasons given in the Notice of Dismissal were not credible. See Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 918 (9th Cir.1996). Moreover, Pearlman’s declaration states that…