
    Gloria WILLIAMS-KATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Jeh Johnson, Secretary, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-30674
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 12, 2014.
    Gloria Williams-Kates, Bogalusa, LA, pro se.
    Sandra Ema Gutierrez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Peter M. Mansfield, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Sharon Denise Smith, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Gloria Williams-Kates appeals from a final judgment dismissing all of her claims, giving us jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Williams-Kates sued her former employer, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserting claims of discrimination due to age, disability, and gender, as well as retaliation. The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s deciding the case. DHS submitted a motion for summary judgment, and Williams-Kates eventually filed two volumes of exhibits in opposition.

The magistrate granted summary judgment in favor of DHS on all of Williams-Kates’s claims, dismissing her suit with prejudice on June 7, 2013. The magistrate judge’s Order and Reasons carefully set out the facts at issue, noted Williams-Kates’s often unsupported objections to each fact, and applied to the undisputed material facts the burden-shifting framework under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). On appeal, Williams-Kates essentially reurges the same arguments she raised below.

Under our de novo review of this grant of summary judgment, applying the same standards under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 that the magistrate judge applied, we reach the same conclusions that the magistrate judge reached, for the same reasons stated in her Order and Reasons. Accordingly, we affirm. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cut. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . See Burrell v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Bottling Group, Inc., 482 F.3d 408, 411 (5th Cir.2007) (citing Jones v. Comm’r, 338 F.3d 463, 466 (5th Cir.2003)).
     