Lin Gao appeals the district court’s 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of her complaint, in which she asserted discrimination claims against her former employer. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the dismissal was proper. See Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848-49 (8th Cir. 2014) (district court’s grant of motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo; to survive motion to dismiss, pro se complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state claim to relief that is plausible on its face); see also EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., 774 F.3d 1169, 1181 (8th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff asserting Title VII claim based on alleged harassment must show, among other elements, that there was causal nexus between harassment and her membership in protected group).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Gao’s renewed motion for appointed counsel.