James I. Toney appeals from the order of the District Court 1 granting summary judgment to the defendants in Toney’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Toney, we conclude that summary judgment was proper for the reasons stated by the District Court. See Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d at 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting the summary judgment standard of review). We further conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in supervising the discovery process and the filing of pleadings or in its decisions to deny the appointment of counsel and an expert. See Phillips v. Jasper Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (‘We will reverse a court’s denial of appointed counsel only if it constitutes an abuse of discretion.”); Level 3 Commc’ns, L.L.C. v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 540 F.3d 794, 796 (8th Cir. 2008) (explaining that we review a district court’s discovery rulings for a gross abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 557 U.S. 935, 129 S.Ct. 2859, 174 L.Ed.2d 576 (2009); Sierra Club v. Robertson, 28 F.3d 753, 760 (8th Cir. 1994) (reviewing the denial of a motion to file a second supplemental complaint for an abuse of discretion); U.S. Marshals Serv. v. Means, 741 F.2d 1053, 1059 (8th Cir. 1984) (en banc) (emphasizing that a court should appoint an expert witness “only under compelling circumstances”).

We affirm the judgment of the District Court.