William Robert Gibson appeals from the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Age Discrimination in Employment Act lawsuit. Upon our careful de novo review of the admissible evidence, we conclude summary judgment was proper because Gibson failed to submit evidence that Premium Standard Farm’s (PSF’s) stated reason for his termination — violation of PSF’s policy against intentional animal abuse — was a pretext for age discrimination. See Winkle v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co., 195 F.3d 418, 420 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review; burden-shifting analysis).

We also conclude Gibson’s service-letter claim fails because he did not adduce evidence that PSF’s stated reason for firing him was false. See Mo.Rev.Stat. § 290.140 (2000); Stark v. Am. Bakeries Co., 647 S.W.2d 119, 124 n. 5 (Mo. 1983) (en banc).

Accordingly, we affirm.