[UNPUBLISHED]

Following her termination while on maternity leave, Rhonda Peterson commenced this action alleging, inter alia, that her former employer, TranSystems Corporation, violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) by interfering with her right to be restored to her prior position and by retaliating against her for exercising her FMLA leave rights. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 2614(a)(1), 2615(a). Applying the proper standard of review, the district court 1 granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Peterson appeals the dismissal of her interference and retaliation claims. We affirm.

Correctly anticipating this court’s interpretation of the FMLA in Throneberry v. McGehee Desha County Hosp., 403 F.3d 972, 976-81 (8th Cir. 2005), the district court dismissed Peterson’s interference claim on the ground that TranSystems had presented overwhelming unrefuted evidence satisfying its burden to show that Peterson was not reinstated to her position because of her poor job performance prior to taking paid pregnancy leave and her attitude toward her work following a previous demotion. The district court dismissed Peterson’s retaliation claim on the ground that Peterson failed to show any causal connection between the termination and her exercise of FMLA rights — Tran-Systems presented strong evidence of legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the termination, and Peterson presented no evidence of retaliatory motive beyond some temporal proximity between the leave and the termination. See Kipp v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 280 F.3d 893, 896-97 (8th Cir. 2002).

Having carefully reviewed the summary judgment record de novo, we agree with the district court’s thorough analysis. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in the court’s Order dated March 17, 2005. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.