Wilson

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Wilson appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 free speech claim in favor of Defendants Karen Hinton, John Lilley, and John Frederick. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. We conclude that Wilson’s speech was made pursuant to his official duties as a public employee of the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension (“UNCE”) and is thus not protected. Even if it was protected, his First Amendment right is outweighed by Defendants’ legitimate administrative interest. As the parties are well aware of the facts, we do not recite them here.

“A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.” Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 , 922 (9th Cir.2004). “We must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [Wilson], the non-moving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the substantive law.” Id.

The Supreme Court decided Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 , 126 S.Ct. 1951 , 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006), after the parties filed their briefing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment but before the district…