Minnesota prisoner Scott Andrew Kohser appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
Upon de novo review, see Entzi v. Redmann, 485 F.3d 998, 1001 (8th Cir.2007), we affirm. We agree with the district court that Kohser’s legal mail, access to courts, Fifth Amendment, due process, and retaliation claims failed on their merits. See McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 35-36, 122 S.Ct. 2017, 153 L.Ed.2d 47 (2002) (Fifth Amendment); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (due process); Entzi, 485 F.3d at 1005 (court access); Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430-31 (8th Cir. 1997) (legal mail); Cornell v. Woods, 69 F.3d 1383, 1387-89 (8th Cir.1995) (retaliation). Further, we conclude that summary judgment was not prematurely granted, see Robinson v. Terex Corp., 439 F.3d 465, 467 (8th Cir.2006); and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing individual-capacity claims against defendants Ben Brieschke and Jeffery Shorba, and in denying Kohser’s motion for a default judgment against these defendants, see Harris v. St. Louis Police Dep’t, 164 F.3d 1085, 1086 (8th Cir.1998) (per curiam); Bullock v. United States, 160 F.3d 441, 442 (8th Cir.1998) (per curiam).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We grant Kohser’s motions on ap*754peal for verification and to file a Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter and a supplemental appendix.