Kim Squalls appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her action asserting claims under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Upon careful de novo review, see Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042, 1049-50 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (standard of review; discussing legal standards), we conclude that the district court did not err in its 'summary judgment decision, see Gibson v. Am. Greetings Corp., 670 F.3d 844, 852-55 (8th Cir. 2012) (affirming grant of summary judgment in Title VII action; discussing pretext); Rahlf v. Mo-Tech Corp., Inc., 642 F.3d 633, 636-40 (8th Cir. 2011) (affirming grant of summary judgment in ADEA action; discussing pretext).

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