Genick Bar-Meir filed this action against the North American Die Casting Association (NADCA) and six individuals, claiming they infringed his copyrights of a book and an article. The district court 1 *675 dismissed the action for Bar-Meir’s persistent failure to comply with orders to provide proper discovery. Bar-Mem appeals the dismissal and several other pretrial rulings. 2

We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action after finding that Bar-Meir had intentionally refused to provide discovery central to his claims and NADCA’s defense, and that a lesser sanction would not adequately protect NADCA. See Martin v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp., 251 F.3d 691, 694-95 (8th Cir. 2001)(standard of review). We also hold the court did not abuse its discretion in any of its discovery rulings. See SDI Operating P’ship v. Neuwirth, 973 F.2d 652, 655 (8th Cir. 1992)(standard of review).

We further hold the district court did not err in dismissing the individual defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, see Wessels, Arnold & Henderson v. Nat’l Med. Waste, Inc., 65 F.3d 1427, 1432 (8th Cir. 1995)(factors for determining personal jurisdiction), or in denying Bar-Meir leave to file his first proposed amended complaint, as the proposed amendment would have been futile, see Wald v. Southwestern Bell Corp. Customcare Med. Plan, 83 F.3d 1002, 1006 (8th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, we affirm.