Arkansas inmates Jeffrey Scott Ratch-ford, Charles E. Butler, Robert R. Heffer-nan, and Dellemond Cunningham appeal following the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in them 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon de novo review, see Sutherland v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 580 F.3d 748, 750 (8th Cir. 2009), we agree with the district court that a jury would be unable to conclude, from the evidence offered below, that the named defendants interfered with appellants’ right of access to the courts, or engaged in retaliatory acts against them, see Santiago v. Blair, 707 F.3d 984, 991 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing retaliation claims); Bandy-Bey v. Crist, 578 F.3d 763, 765 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (discussing access-to-eourts claims).

The remaining challenged orders — rulings on motions regarding discovery, appointment of counsel, and to supplement the complaint — are not properly before us. This is because the magistrate judge entered these orders, and appellants did not thereafter submit the orders to the district court for review. See LeGear v. Thalacker, 46 F.3d 36, 36-37 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (magistrate judge’s decision issued absent consent requires initial review by district court). Finally, we decline to address the new matters raised on appeal. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.