Charles P. Pride brought this action after the City of Biloxi demolished a structure on his property and cleared trash and debris from his lot. He asserted various civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a takings claim, and various tort and conspiracy claims. The district court dismissed most of the claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 and then granted summary judgment on the remaining claims. Pride now appeals.

Reviewing the record de novo, see, e.g., Curtis v. Anthony, 710 F.3d 587, 593 (5th Cir. 2013), we affirm for the same reasons articulated by the district court. With the benefit of liberal construction, Pride argues that he suffered an unconstitutional taking and that the defendants engaged in a malicious enforcement action, resulting in improper demolition and clearing of his lot without due process. To the extent that Pride argues there was a taking, the district court correctly held that Pride’s claims are not ripe. See Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 194-95,105 S.Ct. 3108, 3120-21, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985). Furthermore, the record shows that the defendants complied with the notice requirements for a code enforcement action and demolition under Mississippi law. See Miss.Code Ann. § 21-19-11. Pride’s rambling and conclusory arguments to the contrary may not prevent summary judgment. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.