
    Zundria D. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORP., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-60502.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 6, 2009.
    
      Zundria D. Crawford, pro se.
    Paula Graves Ardelean, Butler, Snow, O’Mara, Stevens & Cannada, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

This is an employment discrimination case that reaches us on appeal from a grant of summary judgment by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.

From late November 2003 to late September 2005, the plaintiff-appellant, Zundria Crawford, worked for defendant-appellee Baxter Healthcare Corp., a medical devices company, in its Cleveland, Mississippi, facility. From November 24, 2003, until January 1, 2005, she was a “Quality Lab Associate” in the facility’s microbiology lab. Then Baxter transferred her to the chemistry lab, where she worked until she was fired on September 29, 2005. She filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC, which granted her a right to sue letter without issuing a determination. She filed suit in federal court on July 17, 2007.

The district court granted summary judgment for Baxter,' holding that she did not successfully make out a prima facie case of discrimination and that even if she had, Baxter offered a non-discriminatory reason for its action, which Crawford failed to refute. Because we agree with the district court that she has not made out a prima facie case, we need go no further in our analysis.

As to the prima facie case for discriminatory termination, Crawford was replaced by another African-American, and she has not shown that Baxter treated her less favorably than any similarly situated employee. Her record of poor work performance far exceeds that of any other employee whose record she cites.

As to the prima facie case for retaliation, Crawford’s own brief acknowledges that she was unqualified for the chemistry lab job from which she was fired. This transfer to this lab from the microbiology lab took place in January 2005, long before she made the complaint that allegedly led to Baxter’s retaliatory treatment. Thus, this complaint could not possibly have been the reason for her termination, because, as she herself acknowledges, her lack of ability to perform her new job was the reason she was fired. Even without this acknowledgement, her prima facie case on retaliation would undoubtedly fail, given her poor record before and after she made her complaint and the utter lack of evidence of a causal relationship between the complaint and her ultimate termination.

This court’s review of grants of summary judgment is de novo. Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions and the record. We find that Crawford has failed to establish a prima facie case for either of her claims. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.
     
      
      . The district court wrote: "In this case, defendant has produced one of the most carefully and extensively documented records of inadequate work performance which this court has encountered.... [T]he court has no doubt that plaintiff was, in fact, terminated because of her poor work performance and because of her difficult attitude in dealing with co-workers and supervisors, rather than because of discrimination or retaliation.”
     
      
      . See Okoye v. Univ. of Texas Houston Health Science Center, 245 F.3d 507, 513-14 (5th Cir.2001).
     
      
      . "Instead of Baxter continuing to help Ms. Crawford improve in the behavioral area, Baxter transferred her to the Chem Lab which was outside of her qualifications and ability which resulted ultimately in her termination.”
     