Trice

MEMORANDUM **

Geraldine Trice appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment dismissing her Title VII action alleging discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . After de novo review, Gregory v. Widnall, 153 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam), we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Trice’s Title VII hostile workplace claim because she failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment. See id. at 1074-75 . To the degree that Trice makes a hostile workplace claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 , the claim fails for the same reason. See Manatt v. Bank of Am., 339 F.3d 792, 797-98 (9th Cir.2003).

The district court also properly concluded that Trice failed to establish a prima facie case for any of her other Title VII claims. See Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir.2003) (stating elements of prima facie case of wrongful discharge); Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 923 (9th Cir.2000) (stating elements of prima facie case of retaliation). Even if Trice’s request for a…