
    John ESCOBEDO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Rissie L. Ownes, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-20143.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 10, 2009.
    Jo Miller, Conroe, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    
      Cynthia L. Alexander, Office of the Attorney General, Law Enforcement Defense Div., Allan Kennedy Cook, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

In this appeal, John Escobedo challenges the district court’s dismissal of his employment discrimination and retaliation suit on summary judgment.

After a careful review of the record and consideration of the briefs and oral argument of counsel, we conclude that the district court committed no error.

On the employment discrimination claim in which Escobedo contended that the defendant refused to hire him as a parole commissioner because he was Hispanic, the only significant issue is whether plaintiff demonstrated that the non-discriminatory reasons given for the refusal to hire were pretextual. The plaintiff failed to show that the more recent experience and knowledge of current parole rules, regulations and practices by the candidates who were hired was not a legitimate non-dis-eriminatory reason for the employer’s hiring decision. Further, Owens gave cogent, plausible reasons why Escobedo’s interview performance was inferior to the performance of the candidates chosen for the Angleton and Huntsville positions.

The district court also did not err in rejecting plaintiff’s claim that the defendant’s refusal to hire him for the Gatesville position was in retaliation for his filing an EEOC complaint. As with the court’s analysis of Escobedo’s discrimination claim, the district court correctly determined that plaintiff failed to show that Owens’ non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory rationale in not hiring Escobedo was pre-textual.

For these reasons and the reasons assigned by the district court in its thorough 20 page opinion, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
     