[UNPUBLISHED]

Missouri inmate'Rolf A. Rosendahl appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against various Western Missouri Corrections Center employees. Mr. Rosendahl claimed that defendants (1) retaliated against him for filing lawsuits and grievances by issuing him false conduct violations and placing him in administrative segregation, (2) denied him access to the courts by seizing and storing his legal materials, and (3) violated his free speech rights by opening an envelope con *741 taining a letter he wrote and then punishing him for the letter’s contents.

Having reviewed the record de novo, we affirm for the reasons explained by the district court. See Davis v. Norris, 249 F.3d 800, 801 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (“Prisoners’ First Amendment rights may be circumscribed if legitimate penological objectives outweigh preservation of their rights.”); Rouse v. Benson, 193 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review); Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1997) (there is no § 1983 liability based on prison officials’ violation of prison policy; inmate must prove constitutional-right violation); Goff v. Burton, 91 F.3d 1188, 1191 (8th Cir. 1996) (to avoid liability on inmate’s retaliatory-discipline claim, defendants must simply prove there was “some evidence” supporting their decision to discipline him; claim must fail if contested discipline was imposed for actual rule violation); Gas sler v. Wood, 14 F.3d 406, 408 n. 5 (8th Cir. 1994) (“prison officials do not commit constitutional violations by reading prisoners’ nonprivileged mail”).

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