Renita Stultz appeals the district court’s order granting Karen Ponder, Susan Ruth, and The North Carolina Partnership for Children, Inc., summary judgment on the civil action she brought against them. On appeal, Stultz argues that the district court erred in finding that she did not raise a genuine issue of material fact to establish that the Defendants’ proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for her termination were pretextual. She also alleges that the district court erred in denying her motion for a continuance of the summary judgment hearing. We have reviewed the briefs and the joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Stultz v. Ponder, No. 5:03-cv-00646-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 30, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.