In this civil rights action against multiple defendants, Kyle Greene appeals after the district court 1 granted motions to dismiss and for summary judgment prior to discovery, and denied Greene’s motions to amend his complaint.

*998 Upon careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we agree with the district court’s disposition of the case. See, e.g., Schoelch v. Mitchell, 625 F.3d 1041, 1045 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of grant of summary judgment); Ballard v. Heineman, 548 F.3d 1132, 1136 (8th Cir. 2008) (discovery does not need to be completed before court grants summary judgment); In re NVE Corp. Sec. Litig., 527 F.3d 749, 752 (8th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of denial of motion to amend complaint based on futility); Janis v. Biesheuvel, 428 F.3d 795, 800 (8th Cir. 2005) (purpose of qualified immunity is to avoid subjecting government officials to costs of trial or burdens of broad-reaching discovery; unless plaintiffs allegations state claim for violation of clearly established law, defendant seeking qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery).

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