Dennis Maggese appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grants of summary judgment, as well as the denials of his motions for counsel and for reconsideration. After de novo review, see Payne v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co., 716 F.3d 487, 490 (8th Cir. 2013), we conclude that summary judgment was proper for the reasons stat *524 ed by the district court. We also conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in denying Maggese’s motions for counsel, see Plummer v. Grimes, 87 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review), or in denying his motion for reconsideration, see Christensen v. Qwest Pension Plan, 462 F.3d 913, 920 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion); Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.