Case Name: Samuel Lewis TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Paula Huffman PHILLIPS, Function Unit Manager; John Hoskins, Correctional Officer; Michael McGill, Correctional Officer; John Roach, Correctional Officer; Unknown Wilheight, Correctional Officer; Darlene Wansing, Financial Officer; Jody Arnold, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-24
Citations: 638 F. App'x 566
Docket Number: No. 15-2764
Parties: Samuel Lewis TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Paula Huffman PHILLIPS, Function Unit Manager; John Hoskins, Correctional Officer; Michael McGill, Correctional Officer; John Roach, Correctional Officer; Unknown Wilheight, Correctional Officer; Darlene Wansing, Financial Officer; Jody Arnold, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before LOKEN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 638
Pages: 566–567

Head Matter:
Samuel Lewis TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Paula Huffman PHILLIPS, Function Unit Manager; John Hoskins, Correctional Officer; Michael McGill, Correctional Officer; John Roach, Correctional Officer; Unknown Wilheight, Correctional Officer; Darlene Wansing, Financial Officer; Jody Arnold, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-2764.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: March 21, 2016.
Filed: March 24, 2016.
Samuel Lewis Taylor, Cameron, MO, pro se.
Joel A. Poole, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Jefferson City, MO, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before LOKEN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Missouri inmate Samuel Lewis Taylor appeals following the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We find that Taylor's claims of access to the courts, conspiracy, and due process were properly dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (de novo review), because Taylor's complaint contained insufficient facts to support such claims, see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.2004) (pro se complaints must be liberally construed, but must allege sufficient facts to support claims advanced). Further, we find that summary judgment was properly granted on Taylor's remaining First Amendment retaliation claims. See Holt v. Howard, 806 F.3d 1129, 1132 (8th Cir.2015) (de novo review); Santiago v. Blair, 707 F.3d 984, 991 (8th Cir.2013) (elements of retaliation claim). Finally, we find no error in the denial of Taylor's motion to compel. See Heart of Am. Grain Insp. Serv., Inc. v. Mo. Dep't of Agric., 123 F.3d 1098, 1107 (8th Cir.1997) (gross-abuse-of-discretion standard of re view). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
. We need not address the district court's dismissal of the claims against John Hoskins and Unknown Wilheight when service was returned unexecuted, because the summary judgment record showed that Taylor would not have prevailed on these claims.