This is the second time we have considered an appeal of this case. In the first appeal, we vacated the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Health Care Authority of the City of Huntsville (“Huntsville Hospital”) for failure to make findings of fact and conclusions of law and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with our opinion. See Stone v. The Health Care Authority of the City of Huntsville, No. 03-10829, 85 Fed.Appx. 726 (11th Cir. Oct. 10, 2003). On remand, the district court once again granted summary judgment in favor of Huntsville Hospital and complied with our mandate by making detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Appellant Kay Stone (“Stone”) commenced this action by filing a complaint alleging separate and individual violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, as amended, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079, 1085 (11th Cir. 2004).

After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that Stone failed to produce sufficient evidence that *761 Huntsville Hospital discriminated against her because of her disability sufficient to overcome summary judgment. In fact, the record demonstrates that the reason for Stone’s termination was her threat made against her supervisor. 1 Moreover, the undisputed record of evidence demonstrates that no reasonable accommodations were denied to Stone and Huntsville Hospital did not retaliate against her.

For the above-stated reasons, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Huntsville Hospital on Stone’s discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate claims.

AFFIRMED.