Ayodele Akinola v. David Severns; Mike Premo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AYODELE AKINOLA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAVID SEVERNS; MIKE PREMO,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-16593
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00222-HDM-
WGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Ayodele Akinola appeals from the district court’s February 26, 2019 order
granting summary judgment in part, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First
Amendment retaliation claim related to his employment. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barone v. City of Springfield, 902
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-16593
F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Akinola’s
retaliation claim arising from alleged adverse employment actions, other than a
written reprimand in 2015, because Akinola failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether his protected speech was a substantial and motivating
factor in any adverse employment action, or whether defendants would have taken
the alleged action even absent the protected speech. See id. at 1098 (setting forth
five-factor test for First Amendment retaliation claim); Coomes v. Edmonds Sch.
Dist. No. 15, 816 F.3d 1255, 1260 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that all of the factors
are necessary and failure to meet any one of them is fatal to the plaintiff’s case).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --