Claude Thorn appeals from the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action claiming sexual harassment and retaliation for protected activity. Upon de novo review, see Evers v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 241 F.3d 948, 953 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review), we affirm.

Specifically, the actions and comments Thorn complains of were not objectively “severe or pervasive” enough to alter a term, condition, or privilege of his employment, see Henthorn v. Capitol Commc’ns, Inc., 359 F.3d 1021, 1026-28 (8th Cir. 2004) (to establish prima facie case of hostile-environment sexual harassment, plaintiff must show, inter alia, that conduct was objectively “severe or pervasive” enough to alter term, condition, or privilege of employment); and Thorn’s retaliation claims fail because he did not suffer an adverse employment action as a result of his complaints, see Gilooly v. Mo. Dep’t of Health & Senior Servs., 421 F.3d 734, 739 (8th Cir. 2005) (to establish Title VII retaliation claim, plaintiff must show, inter alia, an adverse employment action was taken following complaint); Grey v. City of Oak Grove, 396 F.3d 1031, 1034 (8th Cir. 2005) (same for Fair Labor Standards Act).

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