Samuel Lipari appeals the district court’s 1 orders granting defendants’ motions to dismiss his civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims, denying his motion to amend his complaint, and denying his post-judgment request for the district court judge’s recusal. Following careful review, we find no basis for reversal. See Charles Brooks Co. v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, 552 F.3d 718, 721-23 (8th Cir. 2009) (recognizing de novo review of a dismissal and affirming the dismissal of one plaintiffs individual claims because he failed to allege an injury to confer standing); Regions Bank v. J.R. Oil Co., 387 F.3d 721, 728-29 (8th Cir. 2004) (explaining, to have standing to bring a civil RICO claim, plaintiff must have suffered an injury “by reason of’ a RICO violation and the showing of an injury requires proof of a concrete financial loss, and not mere injury to a valuable intangible property interest); see also United States ex rel. Joshi v. St. Luke’s Hosp., 441 F.3d 552, 555 (8th Cir. 2006) (stating abuse of discretion review for denial of a motion to amend a complaint, but de novo review of the underlying legal conclusion that a proposed amendment to the complaint would have been futile); Hooker v. Story, 159 F.3d 1139, 1140 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (declaring the abuse of discretion standard of review for recusal motions).

We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.