Kendrick Harris appeals the district court’s 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of his employment-dis *672 crimination action. Having conducted de novo review, and accepting the facts in the complaint as true and construing them in Harris’s favor, see Gordon v. Hansen, 168 F.3d 1109, 1113 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we find the district court’s analysis to be correct, thorough, and well-reasoned. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny appellees’ pending motion.