Following the adverse resolution of his civil action, Curtis Neeley appeals the dis *605 trict court’s 1 dismissal of certain claims, and the court’s refusal to allow amendment of his complaint. Upon careful review, we conclude that dismissal of his 17 U.S.C. § 106A claims was proper for the reasons stated by the district court in its June 7, 2011 order denying Neeley’s motion for reconsideration. We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Neeley further leave to amend after he filed a, second amended complaint, as the proposed amendments he highlights on appeal would have been futile. See Dennis v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 207 F.3d 523, 525 (8th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.