Marvin Sundquist appeals from the adverse judgment the district court 1 entered in his action asserting a deprivation of his rights while he was in the process of seeking, and ultimately obtaining, a license from the State of Nebraska to practice massage therapy. He challenges the denial of a motion to amend his complaint and the adverse grant of summary judgment.

We first conclude that the denial of Sundquist’s motion to amend was not an abuse of discretion. See Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that decisions regarding a plaintiffs motion to amend its complaint are reviewed for abuse of discretion). We further conclude that summary judgment was appropriately granted for the reasons stated by the district court. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining that a grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to non-movant). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R, 47B.