Michael Pride, an African-American male, appeals from the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment, and its denial of his motion for reconsideration, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action against his former employer, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife). After de novo review, see Lynn v. Deaconess Med. Ctr.W. Campus, 160 F.3d 484, 486 (8th Cir. 1998), we conclude the district court (1) properly granted summary judgment for the reasons stated in its order, see Dennis v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 207 F.3d 523, 525 (8th Cir. 2000) (denial of leave to amend under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)); Ghane v. West, 148 F.3d 979, 981-83 (8th Cir. 1998) (discrimination analysis); (2) did not err in striking portions of Pride’s affidavit and exhibits, see El Deeb v. Univ. of Minn., 60 F.3d 423, 428-29 (8th Cir. 1995) (affidavits opposing summary judgment motion shall be made on personal knowledge, set forth such facts as would be admissible, and show affirmatively affiant is competent to testify); and (3) did not abuse its discretion in denying Pride’s motion for reconsideration, see Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 169 (8th Cir. 1988) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We grant MetLife’s motion to strike portions of Pride’s submission on appeal.