Teresa A. Peters appeals from the district court’s 1 judgment for her former employer, Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, following a bench trial in her action asserting violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654.

After careful review of the parties’ submissions, we conclude that the district court properly awarded judgment to Mutual. See Rankin v. Seagate Techs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir. 2001) (FMLA); Cossette v. Minn. Power & Light, 188 F.3d 964, 972 (8th Cir. 1999) *589 (retaliation); Snow v. Ridgeview Med. Ctr., 128 F.Sd 1201, 1205-06 (8th Cir. 1997) (ADA). Peters’s argument that her trial counsel was ineffective fails, because a civil litigant has no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. See Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988).

Peters’s remaining arguments either amount to a contention that the district court should not have believed the testimony of defense witnesses, a contention we must reject, see United States v. Adipietro, 983 F.2d 1468, 1479 (8th Cir. 1993); or fail for lack of a showing of any prejudicial abuse of discretion by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.