OPINION PER CURIAM. Plaintiff-Appellant Laine Craig Shore appeals the entry of
summary judgment for Defendant-Appellee John E. Potter, Postmaster General (the “Postmaster”), on an age-discrimination claim, brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1), and two retaliatory-discharge claims, one brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), and the other under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623(d).
Specifically, the district court held that Shore failed to establish a prima facie case for both retaliation claims and, with respect to all three claims, Shore failed to establish that the Postmaster’s proffered reasons for terminating him were pretextual. Having reviewed the district-court opinion de novo, see, e.g., Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Zen Design Group, Ltd., 329 F.3d 546, 551 (6th Cir.2003), and upon careful review of the record and the parties’ submissions, we conclude that the issuance of a more detailed opinion by this Court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose.
Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion, Shore v. Potter, No. 1:03-cv-341, 2005 WL 1123738 (W.D.Mich. May 11, 2005), we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of
summary judgment for the Postmaster.