Nebraska inmate Isiah J. Jones appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review), we agree with the reasons the district court cited for finding no trialwor-thy issues on Jones’s Eighth Amendment claims arising from the treatment of his hypertension or from the treatment of his finger fracture. We also find no gross abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Jones’s motion to compel. See Stuart v. Gen. Motors Corp., 217 F.3d 621, 630 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review).

We decline to consider Jones’s references to claims against defendants named in earlier versions of his complaint, see In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005) (amended complaint supercedes earlier versions of complaint, rendering them without legal effect); the issues he raises for the first time on appeal, see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004); evidence that was not part of the summary judgment record, see Martin v. Russell, 563 F.3d 683, 686 (8th Cir. 2009); or Jones’s challenges to the denial of post-judgment relief, given his failure to amend his notice of appeal or file another notice of appeal designating the order denying such relief, see Fed. R.App. P. *147 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny Jones’s pending motions.