Charles Goods appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Title VII employment-discrimination suit. After de novo review, we agree with the district court that the non-employer defendants were not liable, and that Goods failed to create trialworthy issues on whether he was terminated because of his race or suffered retaliation because of engaging in protected activity. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (burden-shifting analysis); Knieriem v. Group Health Plan, Inc., 434 F.3d 1058, 1060 (8th Cir. 2006) (de novo review of Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal); Johnson v. AT & T Corp., 422 F.3d 756, 760 (8th Cir. 2005) (de novo review of grant of summary judgment). Further, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appointment of counsel, see Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review and relevant factors); or in refusing to compel production of a purported court order to monitor Goods, see Sallis v. Univ. of Minn., 408 F.3d 470, 477 (8th Cir. 2005) (review of discovery rulings is narrow and deferential).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Goods’s pending motions.