In this properly removed action, Kalvin and Patricia Loyd appeal after the district court 1 dismissed their civil rights complaint, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint. See Garland v. Peebles, 1 F.3d 683, 686 (8th Cir. 1993) (dismissal for failure to prosecute is reviewed for abuse of discretion; dismissal is proper when there has been clear record of delay by plaintiff). We additionally conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Loyds’ motion for appointment of counsel. See Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (denial of motion for appointment of counsel is reviewed for abuse of discretion; discussing relevant factors).

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