In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Arkansas Department of Correction inmate David Williams appeals following the district court’s 1 dismissal of four defendants and its grant of summary judgment to one defendant. Upon careful de novo review, we agree with the district court that Mr. Williams did not support his conclusory allegations that he received a retaliatory disciplinary, and we agree that he otherwise failed to state a claim. See Haynes v. Stephenson, 588 F.3d 1152, 1155-56 (8th Cir. 2009) (retaliatory discipline); Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127, 1129 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (retaliatory animus could not be inferred from speculative and concluso-ry allegations); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (inmate’s § 1983 claims fail absent defendant’s personal involvement in, or direct responsibility for, incidents that caused injury).

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons provided by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.