Richard A. Mathis appeals the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having reviewed the record, this court agrees that Mathis’s bare assertions — without the support of exhibits, affidavits or sworn statements— do not establish a genuine issue of material fact. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), (e); Janis v. Biesheuvel, 428 F.3d 795, 799 (8th Cir. 2005); Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir. 2004) (de novo standard of review). Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel because it cited a case outlining the requisite factors, which it considered in determining there would be no fundamental injustice. See Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996). Finally, the district court is under no obligation to give pro se prisoners notice of summary judgment requirements. See Beck v. Skon, 253 F.3d 330, 333 (8th Cir. 2001).

Thus, for the reasons explained in the district court’s opinion, this court affirms. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.