Tony Williams appeals the district court’s 1 adverse judgment dismissing his pro se amended complaint. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court’s dismissal was proper, and we note that Williams has not presented any meaningful legal argument on appeal regarding the claims he asserted in his amended complaint. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir. 2007) (points not meaningfully argued in opening brief are waived); see also Butler v. Bank of Am., N.A.,690 F.3d 959, 961 (8th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of dismissal). To the extent Williams attempts to assert new claims on appeal, we decline to consider them. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (claims not presented in district court may not be advanced for first time on appeal). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.