
    Igor MOISEEFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 04-1042.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    March 2, 2005.
    James T. Bilicki, Benner & Bilicki, Farmington Hills, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    
      Richard M. Tuyn, Vicki J. Patterson, Cattel, Tuyn & Rudzewicz, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before BATCHELDER, COLE, Circuit Judges, and RUSSELL, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Thomas B. Russell of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
    
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-Appellant Igor Moiseeff appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Daimler-Chrysler Corporation in this case brought pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. The district court found that Moiseeff did not establish a prima, facie case of retaliation under the FMLA because he failed to show a causal connection between his FMLA-protected leave and his discharge. In the alternative, the court found that Moiseeff failed to show that Daimler-Chrysler’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for discharge was pretextual.

This Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. McKay v. Toyota Motor Mfg., USA, Inc., 110 F.3d 369, 372 (6th Cir.1997). We have reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions. For substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s comprehensive opinion dated November 21, 2003, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment.  