Ingrid Cyleste Winslow-Harris brought claims of retaliatory discharge and employ *659 ment discrimination against the Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service. The district court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim of retaliatory discharge and granted the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the claim of employment discrimination. Winslow-Harris appeals the judgment on both claims. We AFFIRM.

On her first claim of retaliatory discharge, the district court held that Win-slow-Harris had not exhausted her administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). Thus, the district court properly dismissed this claim under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783, 788 (5th Cir. 2006).

Winslow-Harris’s second claim of discrimination based on her race is analyzed using the traditional burden-shifting rules of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). A plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case that she has suffered discrimination based on race. Frank v. Xerox Corp., 347 F.3d 130, 137 (5th Cir. 2003). If that case is made, the burden shifts to the defendant to “articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the questioned employment action.” Id. If such a reason is given, “the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to produce evidence that the defendant’s articulated reason is merely a pretext for discrimination.” Id.

Assuming Winslow-Harris established her prima facie case, the Defendant articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for discharging Winslow-Harris during her probationary period of employment. Winslow-Harris filed no opposition to the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The record contains no evidence that the Defendant’s stated reasons are pretextual. “ ‘A complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial’ and ‘mandates the entry of summary judgment’ for the moving party.” United States ex rel. Farmer v. City of Houston, 523 F.3d 333, 337 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). The claim based on racial discrimination fails because there was no evidence produced suggesting pretext.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.