Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY COX, No. 05-17300
D.C. No. CV-04-00101-SMM
Plaintiff- Appellant,
v.
JUDGMENT
AMERIGAS PROPANE INC, a _
_ Pennsylvania corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix).
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
submitted.
On consideration whereoiQ it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
AFFIRMED. ·
Filed and entered 12/OS/06 g i; l
Clerk of Court. Te ; rr
ATTE§P_ · ;· 5 ;.
te ; t .
* S Gi
e A
Y
Case 2:04-cv-00101-SIVIIVI Document 57 Filed O1/11·/200-7 Page 1 of 3 l A

...· /=·L/ae)
-5 ‘i ‘
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 08 2006
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS cArLiig§iccl%T§Ig§pPr~éAe1§ERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY COX, ) No. 05-17300
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) D.C. No. CV-04-00101-PHX-SMM
)
v. ) MEMORANDUM”°
)
AMERIGAS PROPANE, INC., )
)
)
Defendant-Appellee. )
_ ____...._)
Appeal from the United States District Court
_ for the District of Arizona `
Steven M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding .
Submitted December 4, 2006**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Cox appeals pro se the district court’s grant of a motion for
summary judgment in favor of Amerigas Propane, Inc., and the district court’s
grant in part of Amerigas’ partial motion to strike Cox’s separate statement of
’ This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or
by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. _
" The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral
argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). `
Case 2:04—cv—00101-SIVIIVI Document 57 Filed O1/11/2007 Page 2 of 3

_. .
J { l
facts opposing the summary judgment motion. We review the grant of summary
judgment de novo. g Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir. 2004). We l
review evidentiary rulings made in the context of summary judgment for abuse of
discretion. g Domingo ex rel. Domingo v. T.K., 289 F.3d 600, 605 (9th Cir. l _
2002) (internal citation omitted). We affirm. Cox failed to establish a prima facie
case of retaliatory discharge in violation of Arizona’s Employment Protection Act,
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1501(3)(c)(ii), when he failed to show a causal connection _
between his protected activity and his discharge. Hernandez v. Spacelabs Med.
hmm 343 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2003). Because Cox failed to make a showing
sufficient to establish an element essential to his case for which he bore the burden l
of proof at trial, the district court properly granted summary judgment in 1
Amerigas’ favor. Celotex‘Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548,
2552, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). Cox also has made no showing nor does the
record reflect that the district court abused its discretion by excluding certain of
Cox’s statements of fact which were irrelevant or unsupported by admissible
p evidence. -
AFFIRMED. -
2
Case 2:04-cv-00101-SIVIIVI Document 57 Filed O1/11/2007 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00101-SMM

Document 57

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00101-SMM

Document 57

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00101-SMM

Document 57

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 3 of 3