                 United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 18-2637
                        ___________________________

                          Frank Thunder Hawk-Gallardo

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                           v.

                            Sergeant Jeremy Wendling

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
                                      ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls
                                   ____________

                            Submitted: March 8, 2019
                              Filed: March 13, 2019
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                        ____________

PER CURIAM.

      In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, federal inmate Frank Thunder-Hawk Gallardo
appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment. Upon de

      1
      The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable
Veronica L. Duffy, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota.
novo review, see Cullor v. Baldwin, 830 F.3d 830, 836 (8th Cir. 2016) (summary
judgment standard of review); Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000)
(per curiam) (standard of review for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)), we
find no merit to Gallardo’s arguments for reversal.2 The judgment is affirmed. See
8th Cir. R. 47B.
                       ______________________________




      2
       The matters Gallardo raises for the first time in this court have not been
considered. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (declining to
consider pro se appellant’s new allegations and arguments).

                                        -2-
