FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 04 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WELTHA J. JONES-RANKINS, No. 12-15143
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01626-FJM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CARDINAL HEALTH
INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 24, 2013 **
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Weltha J. Jones-Rankins appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her employment action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII
and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
de novo, Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2008), and
we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because, although
Rankins established a prima facie case of retaliation based on circumstantial
evidence, she failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendant’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for its decision to transfer her out of
the state was merely pretextual. See id. at 1108 (discussing elements and burden-
shifting framework of Title VII and § 1981 retaliation claims); Collings v.
Longview Fibre Co., 63 F.3d 828, 834 (9th Cir. 1995) (employee must produce
“‘specific, substantial evidence of pretext’ in order to avoid summary judgment”
on discrimination and retaliation claims (citation omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rankins’s motion
for reconsideration because Rankins failed to establish grounds for such relief. See
D. Ariz. Loc. R. 7.2(g) (court should deny reconsideration “absent a showing of
manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been
brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence”); Sch. Dist. No. 1J,
Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993)
(setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).
2 12-15143
We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s award of costs to
defendant after Rankins filed this appeal because Rankins did not file an amended
or a separate notice of appeal. See Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th
Cir. 2007).
We decline to address Rankins’s contention that the district court erred in
granting attorney’s fees to defendant because there is no record of such an award.
Rankins’s contentions regarding the district court’s allegedly improper
refusal to admit evidence that did not comply with the local rules, failure to
consider defendant’s intentional inflection of emotional distress, bias against her as
a pro se litigant, and various other judicial improprieties in handling this case are
unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-15143