Federal inmate Michael Simpson brought this pro se action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), asserting medical deliberate-indifference claims, among other claims. Simpson appeals after the district court 1 denied his motion for a preliminary injunction, concluded that all of his claims failed as a matter of law, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and entered judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. Also pending are Simpson’s motions to “change- the style of the case,” and for reconsideration of an order entered by the clerk’s office.

Upon careful review, we first conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Simpson’s motion for a preliminary injunction. See Dataphase Sys. Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc). We further conclude that the district court appropriately disposed of Simpson’s claims, because, among other reasons, the record established beyond genuine dispute that defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Simpson’s serious medical needs. See Allard v. Baldwin, 779 F.3d 768, 771-72 (8th Cir. 2015).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. In addition, Simpson’s pending motions are denied.