Arbary Jackson appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Upon de novo review, see Union Elec. Co. v. Mo. Dept. of Conservation, 366 F.3d 655, 657 (8th Cir. 2004), we agree with the district court that Jackson’s complaint was barred by sovereign immunity, see Board of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001). Jackson’s pro se status does not excuse his failure to name the proper parties, see Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir. 1986) (pro se liti *334 gants are not excused from complying with substantive and procedural law), and we decline his request to remand this matter with instructions to allow amendment of his complaint, see Artis v. Francis Howell N. Band Booster Ass’n, Inc., 161 F.3d 1178, 1182 (8th Cir. 1998) (denying request on appeal to amend complaint to name defendant in his personal capacity where plaintiff had ample time to seek amendment but failed to do so). Finally, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jackson’s motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006).

Accordingly, we affirm.