Case Name: Curtis James NEELEY, Jr., MFA, Appellant, v. NAMEMEDIA, INC., Appellee, Network Solutions, Defendant, Google, Inc., Appellee; NameMedia, Inc., Counter Claimant, v. Curtis James Neeley, Jr., MFA, Counter Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-15
Citations: 463 F. App'x 604
Docket Number: No. 11-2558
Parties: Curtis James NEELEY, Jr., MFA, Appellant, v. NAMEMEDIA, INC., Appellee, Network Solutions, Defendant, Google, Inc., Appellee. NameMedia, Inc., Counter Claimant, v. Curtis James Neeley, Jr., MFA, Counter Defendant.
Judges: Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 463
Pages: 604–605

Head Matter:
Curtis James NEELEY, Jr., MFA, Appellant, v. NAMEMEDIA, INC., Appellee, Network Solutions, Defendant, Google, Inc., Appellee. NameMedia, Inc., Counter Claimant, v. Curtis James Neeley, Jr., MFA, Counter Defendant.
No. 11-2558.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 3, 2012.
Filed: Feb. 15, 2012.
Curtis James Neeley, Jr., MFA, Fay-etteville, AR, pro se.
H. William Allen, Brooks C. White, Allen Law Firm, Little Rock, AR, for Na-meMedia, Inc.
Robert L. Jones, III, Kerri E. Kobbe-man, John Mark Scott, Conner & Winters, Fayetteville, AR, for Network Solutions.
Jennifer H. Doan, Joshua R. Thane, Haltom & Doan, Texarkana, TX, Michael Henry Page, Durie & Tangri, San Francisco, CA, for Google, Inc.
Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Following the adverse resolution of his civil action, Curtis Neeley appeals the dis trict court's dismissal of certain claims, and the court's refusal to allow amendment of his complaint. Upon careful review, we conclude that dismissal of his 17 U.S.C. § 106A claims was proper for the reasons stated by the district court in its June 7, 2011 order denying Neeley's motion for reconsideration. We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Neeley further leave to amend after he filed a, second amended complaint, as the proposed amendments he highlights on appeal would have been futile. See Dennis v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 207 F.3d 523, 525 (8th Cir.2000). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.