                  United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 14-3252
                        ___________________________

                                 Maurice D. Roberts

                        lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

                                            v.

  Edward Ruppel; Clifton Bowen; David Dormire; Matt Strum; David Freeman

                      lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
               for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
                                 ____________

                             Submitted: January 6, 2016
                              Filed: January 11, 2016
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before SMITH, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
                            ____________

PER CURIAM.

     Missouri inmate Maurice Roberts appeals after the district court1 entered final
judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We conclude that, for the reasons

      1
      The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
given by the district court: (1) dismissal was proper as to the four defendants named
in Roberts’s original complaint, see Rochling v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 725 F.3d
927, 930 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal);
Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (standard of review
for 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) dismissal); and (2) summary judgment as to added defendant
David Freeman was proper, see Jenkins v. Cty. of Hennepin, Minn., 557 F.3d 628,
631 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of summary judgment grant). We further
conclude there is no basis for reversal in the court’s rulings on Roberts’s numerous
motions throughout the proceedings regarding discovery, see Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins.
Co. v. Calvin, 802 F.3d 933, 941 (8th Cir. 2015); the appointment of counsel, see
Phillips v. Jasper Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006); injunctive relief, see
Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam); or consolidation
with other cases, see U.S. E.P.A. v. City of Green Forest, Ark., 921 F.2d 1394, 1402
(8th Cir. 1990).

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




                                          -2-
