Arkansas inmate Charles Winston appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Theaster Petty, a kitchen supervisor with the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), and various other ADC employees. After careful review, we conclude that Winston’s retaliatory discipline claim failed as a matter of law because Petty’s disciplinary report provides some evidence that Winston actually violated prison rules. Cf. Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 831 (8th Cir. 2008) (report from correctional officer, even if disputed by inmate and supported by no other evidence, legally suffices as some evidence upon which to base prison disciplinary violation, if violation is found by impartial decisionmaker). We also conclude that Winston cannot create a genuine issue of material fact as to his hearing officer’s impartiality based only on the allegation that Winston had previously filed grievances against the hearing officer. See Meuir v. Greene Cnty. Jail Emps., 487 F.3d 1115, 1119 (8th Cir. 2007) (in case of retaliatory discipline, merely alleging that act was retaliatory is insufficient).

We thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Winston’s pending motion for appointment of counsel.