Arkansas inmate Tommy Radford appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that three officers wrote false disciplinarles against him, the warden did not remedy the situation, and a hearing officer improperly upheld the disciplin-aries. Radford also appeals the denial of his motion to amend his complaint to allege only exhausted claims.

Upon de novo review, see Cody v. Weber, 256 F.3d 764, 767 (8th Cir. 2001), we conclude there was some evidence that Rad-ford committed actual rule violations. See Moore v. Plaster, 266 F.3d 928, 931 (8th Cir. 2001) (retaliation claim may be defended by showing “some evidence” that inmate actually committed rule violation), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1037, 122 S.Ct. 1797, 152 L.Ed.2d 655 (2002); Henderson v. Baird, 29 F.3d 464, 465, 469 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1145, 115 S.Ct. 2584, 132 L.Ed.2d 833 (1995). We also conclude *279 his damages claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). See Portley-El v. Brill, 288 F.3d 1063, 1066-67 (8th Cir. 2002). Finally, we find no error in the denial of Radford’s motion to amend, because his complaint was not dismissed on exhaustion grounds.

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