SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Lavaud Desmoulins appeals from the district court’s judgment approving a settlement agreement entered into between Defendants-Appellees and a guardian ad litem acting on behalf of Plaintiffs-Appellants. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of appellate issues and hold as follows.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to appoint a guardian ad litem, to approve a settlement agreement, and to deny leave to amend a complaint. Ferr elli v. River Manor Health Care Center, 323 F.3d 196, 200 (2d Cir. 2003) (appointment of a guardian ad litem); Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 199 F.3d 642, 654 (2d Cir. 1999) (approval of a settlement agreement); Jin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 84, 101 (2d Cir. 2002) (denial of leave to amend). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2), “[t]he court must appoint a guardian ad litem— or issue another appropriate order — to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” In approving a settlement agreement, the district court should “determine whether a proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, by comparing the terms of the compromise with the likely rewards of litigation.” Neilson, 199 F.3d at 654 (internal quotations and alterations omitted).

Here, in appointing a guardian ad litem, the magistrate judge carefully considered Desmoulins’s ability to prosecute his rights and make rational decisions in light of numerous factors, including subpoenaed medical records documenting his mental health issues. Additionally, in proposing a settlement agreement, Desmoulins’s guardian ad litem thoroughly considered the fairness and adequacy of the agreement in light of the risks of continued litigation. Under these circumstances, the conclusory assertions in Desmoulins’s brief provide no basis for determining that the magistrate judge abused his discretion in appointing a guardian ad litem or approving the settlement agreement. Additionally, the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Desmoulins’s pro se motion to file a second amended complaint, because, at the time that the motion was terminated, a settlement agreement had already been entered into by Defendants-Appellees and Plaintiffs-Appellants, represented by their guardian ad litem.

Finally, contrary to the assertions in Desmoulins’s brief, there is no indication that his subpoenaed medical records were *787 tampered with or improperly distributed. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.