Arkansas inmate Robert Johnson appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of *255 summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he asserted his equal protection rights were violated by defendants when he was charged and punished more harshly than a white inmate with whom he had been in an altercation. Johnson also challenges the court’s denial of appointed counsel, and contends that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to grant summary judgment.

First, we find that the magistrate had authority to rule on the summary judgment motion without review by a district court judge, because all parties had executed a consent to the magistrate’s authority. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Second, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appointed counsel. See Phillips v. Jasper Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review).

Finally, upon de novo review, see Schoelch v. Mitchell, 625 F.3d 1041, 1045 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that the undisputed facts showed that Johnson and the other inmate were not similarly situated with regard to the .altercation. See Weiler v. Purkett, 137 F.3d 1047, 1051 (8th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (equal protection claim). We also find no other evidence supporting an inference that any defendant intentionally or purposefully discriminated against Johnson based on his race. See Lewis v. Jacks, 486 F.3d 1025, 1028 (8th Cir. 2007).

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