
    Asopuru OKEMGBO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-35206
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 13, 2016 
    
    Filed September 19, 2016
    Asopuru Okemgbo, Pro Se
    Jason D. Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General of Washington, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Asopuru Okemgbo appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging Title VII and First Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Okemgbo’s Title VII discrimination claim because Okemgbo failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating his employment was pretextual. See id. at 640-42 & 640 n.5 (setting forth the burden shifting framework for Title VII employment discrimination claims).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Okemgbo’s First Amendment claim because Okemgbo failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant violated his constitutional rights. See Nichols v. Dancer, 657 F.3d 929, 932-33 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth test for evaluating free speech claim in the public employment context); Vernon v. City of Los Angeles, 27 F.3d 1385, 1392-93 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth test for free exercise claim in the public employment context).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations 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.
     