Troy Easterling appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in fa*856vor of Defendants, AutoZone and Brian Church, on his claims of race discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Michigan law. We find no error in the district court’s decision on the appealed issues and determine that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel opinion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court for the reasons stated in that court’s opinion.

concurring.

I believe that Mr. Easterling did establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. However, he failed to establish that Auto Zone’s asserted reason for his discharge was pretextual. Therefore, I concur in the judgment of the court.