United States Court of Appeals
                         FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                 No. 04-1496
                                 ___________

Derek L. Givens,                      *
                                      *
            Appellant,                *
                                      * Appeal from the United States
      v.                              * District Court for the
                                      * Eastern District of Arkansas.
Cingular Wireless,                    *
                                      *
            Appellee.                 *
                                 ___________

                            Submitted: February 4, 2005
                               Filed: February 7, 2005
                                ___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                         ___________

PER CURIAM.

      Derek L. Givens appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary
judgment in his employment-discrimination action. Having carefully reviewed the
record, see Jacob-Mua v. Veneman, 

, 520 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of
review), we affirm.

      As to Givens’s hostile-work-environment claim, we agree with the district
court Givens did not show that he was subjected to conduct extreme enough to

      1
       The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
change the terms and conditions of his employment, see Burkett v. Glickman, 

, 662 (8th Cir. 2003), or that the conduct was due to his race or gender. As
to Givens’s retaliation claim, we also agree that placing Givens on a “performance
improvement plan,” without more, did not constitute an adverse employment action,
see Henthorn v. Capitol Communications, Inc., 

, 1028 (8th Cir. 2004)
(negative employment review is actionable only if it is later used as basis to alter in
detrimental way terms or conditions of recipient’s employment); and we find no basis
in the record for a constructive-discharge claim, see Summit v. S-B Power Tool, 

, 421 (8th Cir. 1997) (explaining constructive discharge), cert. denied, 

(1998). Finally, Givens’s complaint about his counsel’s representation in
the district court is not a basis for reversal. See Glick v. Henderson, 

,
541 (8th Cir. 1988).

      Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                     ______________________________




                                         -2-