Mary Bower appeals the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment to defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of her First Amendment right to free speech, and defamation under state law. Bower also appeals the denial of her motion for appointed counsel, and the dismissal of her children as plaintiffs.

After careful review of the record, we find no error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment, see Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review), and nothing to support Bower’s contention that the district court judge should have recused himself, see 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) (judge is required to disqualify himself in proceedings in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned). We also find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bower’s motion for appointed counsel. See Butler v. Fletcher 465 F.3d 340, 346 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). Thus, the district court did not err in dismissing the claims of Bower’s minor children, as Bower was unable to represent them pro se, see Myers v. Loudoun County Pub. Schs., 418 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 2005), but those claims should have been dismissed without prejudice.

Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, but we modify the dismissal of the *543 claims of Bower’s minor children to be without prejudice.