841 F.2d 1129
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Windell T. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Donald J. LABELLE and Jane Doe Labelle; Roland Malan and
Jane Doe Malan; Don Ekland and Jane Doe Ekland; Daniel
Smollen and Jane Doe Smollen; J. Wes Moore and Jane Doe
Moore; Susan Baugh and John Doe Baugh; and King County,
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 2, 1988.
Decided Feb. 26, 1988.
Before JAMES R. BROWNING, Chief Judge, NORRIS and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
On the basis of the well-reasoned opinion of the district court, we affirm the summary judgment entered against appellant, the Fleet Administrator of King County, Washington, in this civil rights action brought for racial discrimination in violation of his rights under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981, 1983, 1985 and RCW 49.60.
We write separately only to add that the evidence belatedly proffered in the appellant's motion for reconsideration was insufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact. See Coverdell v. Dep't. of Social & Health Servs., 834 F.2d 758, 762 (9th Cir.1987). Appellant did not show that he was unfairly criticized in the audit report, only that he was criticized. Moreover, contrary to his contention, the other managers were also criticized though not as severely as appellant. Appellant also complains because he was not allowed to attach his lengthy personal response to the audit, but he again failed to show that he was treated differently in this respect or that the department acted improperly in denying the request. Simply because the department denied his request is insufficient to show they discriminated against him based on his race. The same is true of the confidential information included in the preliminary audit, particularly since that information was subsequently deleted from the report.
Even including a generous measure of inference, appellant has failed to offer any evidence that appellee's actions were racially motivated or that his rights had been violated.
We deny appellee's request for fees on appeal.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3