Regina RAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEVI STRAUSS & CO., Defendant-Appellee, 215 F. App'x 361

PER CURIAM: Appellant Regina Ray appeals the district court’s grant of

summary judgment to Levi Strauss & Company (“Levi Strauss”) on her age discrimination claim. The district court correctly concluded that Ray cannot show that Levi Strauss’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason — Ray’s poor performance — is pretextual. Having carefully reviewed this appeal in light of the briefs and pertinent parts of the record, we find no reversible error of law or fact and therefore AFFIRM for essentially the reasons stated by the trial court. Pursuant to 5th Cir.

R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. . Ray also contends that the district court erred in applying pre-Reeves case law to her employment discrimination case; however, a careful review of the district court's opinion reveals that the court applied the correct legal standards. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); Bryant v. Compass Group USA Inc., 413 F.3d 471, 478 (5th Cir.2005) (citing Little v.

Republic Refining Co., 924 F.2d 93, 97 (5th Cir.1991)).