In this appeal following remand, Arkansas inmate KeOndra Chestang challenges the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action, in which he raised due process and retaliation claims concerning his lengthy period of confinement in administrative segregation. He also challenges the denial of his motion to compel certain records.

Upon de novo review, see Rochling v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 725 F.3d 927, 937 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review), we conclude that defendants demonstrated with unrebutted evidence that Chestang received the process he was due while he was confined in administrative segregation, see Kelly v. Brewer, 525 F.2d 394, 399-400 (8th Cir. 1975) (where inmate is in administrative segregation for prolonged period, due process requires that his situation be reviewed periodically in meaningful way). We also conclude that Chestang failed to make a triable claim that his confinement was continued in retaliation for exercising his rights under the prison grievance system, see Santiago v. Blair, 707 F.3d 984, 993 (8th Cir. 2013); and that the denial of his motion to compel is not properly before *513 us, because this non-dispositive ruling was made by the magistrate, and Chestang did not seek review by the district court, see Daley v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 415 F.3d 889, 893 n. 9 (8th Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.