Richard Purcell appeals following the adverse grant of summary judgment by the District Court 1 in his civil action claiming retaliation for filing safety complaints. After careful de novo review, see Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006), we agree with the District Court that under the statute at issue as it existed during the events underlying this complaint, 49 U.S.C. § 20109(a) (2006), Purcell was not entitled to relief. We decline his invitation to retroactively apply a subsequent amendment to the statute, see Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 266-68, 280, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994), and we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery, see Steinbuch v. Cutler, 518 F.3d 580, 590 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 223, 172 L.Ed.2d 242 (2008).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.