Cedric Holman appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment-discrimination action against his former employer, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. Having carefully reviewed the record and considered Holman’s arguments, we find no basis for *920 reversal. See Jacob-Mua v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir. 2002) (de novo standard of review). To the extent Holman is attempting to challenge the orders denying his motion to appoint counsel, motion to compel, and motion to amend his complaint, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil case; relevant factors and standard of review); Sallis v. Univ. of Minn., 408 F.3d 470, 477 (8th Cir. 2005) (review of discovery rulings is narrow and deferential); Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835, 841 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying plaintiffs motion for leave to amend complaint where litigation process was already in advanced stage and plaintiff sought to add theories not presented in original complaint).

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