United States Court of Appeals
                           FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 00-1055
                                   ___________

Michael Pride, Sr.,                   *
                                      *
            Appellant,                *
                                      * Appeal from the United States
     v.                               * District Court for the
                                      * District of Nebraska.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, *
a New York Corporation,               * [UNPUBLISHED]
                                      *
            Appellee.                 *
                                 ___________

                          Submitted: April 5, 2001
                              Filed: April 10, 2001
                                  ___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
                          ___________

PER CURIAM.

      Michael Pride, an African-American male, appeals from the district court’s1
adverse grant of summary judgment, and its denial of his motion for reconsideration,
in his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action against his former employer, Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (MetLife). After de novo review, see Lynn v. Deaconess Med.
Ctr.-W. Campus, 

, 486 (8th Cir. 1998), we conclude the district court (1)
properly granted summary judgment for the reasons stated in its order, see Dennis v.

      1
      The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 

, 525 (8th Cir. 2000) (denial of leave to amend
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)); Ghane v. West, 

, 981-83 (8th Cir. 1998)
(discrimination analysis); (2) did not err in striking portions of Pride’s affidavit and
exhibits, see El Deeb v. Univ. of Minn., 

, 428-29 (8th Cir. 1995) (affidavits
opposing summary judgment motion shall be made on personal knowledge, set forth
such facts as would be admissible, and show affirmatively affiant is competent to
testify); and (3) did not abuse its discretion in denying Pride’s motion for
reconsideration, see Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 

, 169 (8th Cir. 1988)
(standard of review).

       Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We grant MetLife’s motion to
strike portions of Pride’s submission on appeal.

      A true copy.

             Attest:

                     CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.




                                          2–