
    George H. WILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gordon R. ENGLAND, United States Department of Navy, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 04-16376.
    D.C. No. CV-02-03106-JSW.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.
    
    Decided Aug. 5, 2005.
    George H. Wiley, Vallejo, CA, pro se.
    Owen P. Martikan, USSF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for De~ fendant-Appellee.
    Before O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

George H. Wiley appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendant in his Title VTI action alleging that the Navy withdrew a provisional offer of temporary employment due to his race and in retaliation for the involvement of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in a prior case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Delta Sav. Bank v. United States, 265 F.3d 1017, 1021 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendant because the decision to rescind the employment offer to Wiley was made based on security clearance issues and judicial review of such decisions is precluded. See Brazil v. United States Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 196 (9th Cir.1995).

Whey’s contention that the denial of security clearance was a pretext for discrimination is unavailing. See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.2001) (this Court need not “accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.
     