In this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, inmate Antonio Seenyur appeals ^fter the district court 1 denied his motion to com *321 pel, adversely granted summary judgment, and denied his motion to amend his complaint. We decline to review Seenyur’s challenge to the denial of his motion to compel because he did not object below. See McDonald v. City of St. Paul, 679 F.3d 698, 709 (8th Cir. 2012) (where party did not file timely objections to magistrate’s nondispositive order in district court, he could not challenge order on appeal). Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted for the reasons stated by the district court, and further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, viewing record in light most favorable to nonmovant); see also Kozlov v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 818 F.3d 380, 395 (8th Cir. 2016) (denial of motion to amend complaint is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B,