Case Name: Peggy BATTLES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. THOMPSON HOSPITALITY SERVICES LLC, Originally Sued As Thompson Hospitality, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-20
Citations: 555 F. App'x 633
Docket Number: No. 13-2250
Parties: Peggy BATTLES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. THOMPSON HOSPITALITY SERVICES LLC, Originally Sued As Thompson Hospitality, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 555
Pages: 633–633

Head Matter:
Peggy BATTLES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. THOMPSON HOSPITALITY SERVICES LLC, Originally Sued As Thompson Hospitality, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-2250.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 7, 2014.
Filed: Feb. 20, 2014.
Peggy Battles, Pine Bluff, AR, pro se.
Thomas Byron Staley, Robinson & Sta-ley, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Meyling Ly, Littler & Mendelson, Dallas, TX, Eva Camille Madison, Littler & Mendelson, Fayetteville, AR, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Peggy Battles appeals from the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in her action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 623. Upon our careful de novo review, see Gibson v. Am. Greetings Corp., 670 F.3d 844, 852 (8th Cir.2012), we agree with the district court that Battles failed to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact existed on whether (1) her former employer's legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her employment was a pretext for age discrimination; and (2) she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on her age. We also agree with the court that the retaliation claim fails, because Battles did not administratively exhaust the claim before filing this suit. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
. To the extent Battles argues on appeal that her counsel below was deficient in representing her, we note that there is no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel in a civil case. See Taylor v. Dickel, 293 F.3d 427, 431 (8th Cir.2002).