Paulson

MEMORANDUM ***

Darnell J. Nelson, an attorney employed by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment, in his federal action alleging race and disability discrimination in his employment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Moore v. Glickman, 113 F.3d 988, 989 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.

The district court correctly granted summary judgment to defendant-appellee on Nelson’s reasonable accommodation claim, because the IRS reasonably accommodated Nelson’s vision impairment when it took actions consistent with the recommendations of Nelson’s treating physician. See Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir.2002) (“An employer is not obligated to provide an employee the accommodation he requests or prefers, the employer need only provide some reasonable accommodation.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The district court correctly dismissed Nelson’s remaining claims against defen *641 dant-appellee, because Nelson did not exhaust his administrative remedies for those claims by contacting an Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) counselor within 45 days of the…