Shirley Byers appeals the District Court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judg- *456 merit in her Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) employment discrimination action. Having carefully reviewed the record, see St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Lifecare Int’l, Inc., 250 F.3d 587, 595 (8th Cir. 2001) (de novo standard of review), we affirm.

We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining Byers’s case was ripe for summary judgment, see Stanback v. Best. Diversified Prods., Inc., 180 F.3d 903, 910-11 (8th Cir. 1999); that Byers failed to establish she had a disability, as that term is defined under the ADA, see Gutridge v. Clure, 153 F.3d 898, 900 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1113, 119 S.Ct. 1758, 143 L.Ed.2d 790 (1999); and that the record did not support an ADA retaliation claim, see Cossette v. Minn. Power & Light, 188 F.3d 964, 972 (8th Cir. 1999).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.