Donnell W. Durley was discharged from his employment with Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (Anheuser-Busch), after he incurred three unexcused absences following a history of discipline for unexcused absences. Durley brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., and Missouri law, claiming that he had been retaliated against for filing a prior race-discrimination lawsuit and discriminated against and harassed because of his age. The district court 1 granted summary judgment to Anheuser-Busch, and Durley appealed. After careful de novo review of the record, see Mathews v. Trilogy Communications, Inc., 143 F.3d 1160, 1163 (8th Cir. 1998), we affirm.

Durley abandoned his age-discrimination claims by failing to raise them in his appellate brief. See Burke v. N.D. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1044 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Further, even assuming Durley established a prima facie case of retaliation, he failed to create a jury issue on whether Anheuser-Busch’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for his discharge was merely a pretext. See Buettner v. Arch Coal Sales Co., 216 F.3d 707, 714 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1077, 121 S.Ct. 773, 148 L.Ed.2d 672 (2001).

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