Maurice Robinson appeals after the district court 1 dismissed his pro se complaint asserting medical, malpractice claims. Without commenting on the district court’s grounds for dismissal, we affirm because we conclude that the complaint was barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.190 (“Whenever a cause of action has been fully barred by the laws of the state, territory or country in which it originated, said bar shall be a complete defense to any action thereon, brought in any of the courts of this state.”); Tenn. Code. Ann. § 29-26-116(a)(1)—(2) (1-year statute of limitations in health care liability actions running from discovery of alleged injury), (a)(3) (no action may be brought more than 3 years after negligent act or omission, or 1 year from discovery of fraudulent concealment); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007) (if allegations show that relief is barred by statute of limitations, complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state claim); Spirtas Co. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 715 F.3d 667, 670-71 (8th Cir. 2013) (this court can affirm on any basis supported by record).

We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Robinson’s various motions for reconsideration. See Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 989 (8th Cir. 1999) (motion for reconsideration directed to nonfinal order is properly construed as Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion; review is for abuse of discretion).

The judgment is affirmed.