MEMORANDUM

Kalvin Kaldor, a former correctional officer, filed this civil rights action alleging that he was terminated in retaliation for public statements he made to a Nevada legislative committee regarding proposals to reduce the budget of the state prison at which he was employed. Prior to his termination, Kaldor was granted a pre-diseiplinary hearing, which resulted in an adverse determination. He withdrew his appeal of that determination and filed this action.

The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the ground that this action is barred by claim preclusion. Specifically, the district court held that because “the facts supporting Kal-dor’s federal action and the previous administrative hearing are the same,” his failure to raise the wrongful termination claims at the administrative hearing “preclude him from having those claims adjudicated by [the district court].” Kaldor v. Skolnik, No. 3:10-cv-0529-LRH-RAM, 2011 WL 3841109 , at *3 (D.Nev. Aug. 26, 2011) (citing Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1099-1100 (9th Cir.2007)).

Kaldor’s sole argument on appeal is that, because he withdrew his appeal from the adverse determination of the pre-disci-plinary hearing, the district court erred in holding that his complaint was barred by claim preclusion. Kaldor cannot avoid the preclusive effect of the pre-disciplinary hearing by forgoing an appeal that would have entitled him to a full administrative hearing. Indeed, under Nevada law, “un-reviewed administrative determinations are binding and have preclusive effect.” Dias v. Elique, 436 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir.2006) (citation omitted). Moreover, Kaldor’s failure to raise the allegations in his complaint at the pre-disciplinary hearing does not defeat claim preclusion. See Olson v. Morris, 188 F.3d 1088 , 1086-87 (9th Cir.1999) (stating that a party’s failure to raise a defense he had the right to raise in an administrative hearing does not defeat application of res judicata).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.