Jesse Tiedeman appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action asserting access-to-courts and conspiracy claims. Upon careful de novo review, see Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review), we conclude that the district court’s summary judgment decision was proper, see Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 831-32 (8th Cir. 2008) (access-to-eourts claim must be supported by showing of actual injury; discussing actual-injury requirement); see also Burton v. St. Louis Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 731 F.3d 784, 798 (8th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff alleging conspiracy under § 1983 must show that he was deprived of constitutional right or privilege). In addition, we decline to consider claims that Tiedeman has asserted for the first time on appeal. See Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d *617 843, 849 (8th Cir. 2014) (appellate court does not address legal or factual claims presented for first time on appeal).

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