William Morrison appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judg *609 ment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he asserted numerous claims related to his pre-trial detention. After appointing Morrison counsel, this court received briefs apd then ordered supplemental briefing on whether summary judgment was proper as to Morrison’s claim that defendants seized and censored his mail without prior notice, in violation of his due process rights, and whether the district court appropriately handled discovery matters. Following a careful review of the record, and consideration of the parties’ arguments in their initial briefs and supplemental briefs, we find no basis to reverse. See Menard, Inc. v. Dial-Columbus, LLC, 781 F.3d 993, 997 (8th Cir. 2015) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo); In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prods. Liab. Litig., 113 F.3d 1484, 1489-90 (8th Cir. 1997) (determination that claim is ripe for summary judgment is reviewed for abuse of discretion; discovery does not have to be completed before court can grant summary judgment).

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