Missouri inmates Curtis Smith, Melvin Tyler, and Jeffrey Barmann appeal the *203 district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action, as well as the denials of numerous motions. Tyler has filed additional motions in this court.

We hold that the district court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, because the ex post facto claim failed as a matter of law. See Cal. Dep’t of Corr. v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 507, 115 S.Ct. 1597, 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995) (retroactive change in state law is ex post facto violation only if law creates “sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment attached to the covered crimes.”); Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006) (grant of summary judgment reviewed de novo). We further conclude that the challenges to the district court’s denials of motions below are either waived or meritless. See Meyers v. Starke, 420 F.3d 738, 743 (8th Cir. 2005) (to be reviewable, issue must be presented in brief with some specificity, and failure to do so can result in waiver).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. The pending motions are denied.