
    Susanna MONTANTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony FOXX, Secretary of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration), Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-55340
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 23, 2016
    Susanna Montante Pro Se
    Kevin Bruce Finn, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Susanna Montante appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her employment action alleging retaliation and related constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Covey v. Hollydale Mobilehome Estates, 116 F.3d 830, 834 (9th Cir. 1997), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee on Montante’s Title YII retaliation claim because Montante failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s asserted non-retaliatory reason for not rehiring her in 2007 was pre-textual. See Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1245-46 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim under Title VII); see also Munoz v. Mabus, 630 F.3d 856, 865 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[The] plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of showing defendant’s stated reasons to be merely pretextual, once defendant has given legitimate, non-retaliatory grounds for its actions.”).

The district court properly dismissed Montante’s claim that she was forced to retire in 2004 in violation of the First Amendment because the Civil Service Reform Act is the sole remedy for constitutional claims arising from federal employment. See David v. United States, 820 F.2d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding the CSRA offered sufficient “meaningful remedies” to preclude a federal employee from pursuing a First Amendment claim).

We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     