Sandra Harp appeals from the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her pro se action claiming that her former employer terminated her based on her race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Upon careful de novo review, see Olsen v. Capital Region Med. Ctr., 713 F.3d 1149, 1153 (8th Cir. 2013), we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment because the admissible evidence before the court would not permit a factfinder to conclude that defendants’ proffered reason for firing Harp was pretextual. See Twymon v. Wells Fargo & Co., 462 F.3d 925, 935 (8th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff failed to show proffered reason for termination was pretext where she did not assert that employer did not honestly believe she was accountable for violations of policy when it fired her for those violations).

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