United States Court of Appeals
                              For the Eighth Circuit
                          ___________________________

                                  No. 17-1886
                          ___________________________

                                        Larry Rice

                         lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

                                             v.

Interfood, Inc.; Jason Medcalf; Dirk Neerhoff; Nick Sharp; F.C.G.M. (Frank) van Stipdonk

                       lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
                                        ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                                   ____________

                             Submitted: January 17, 2018
                              Filed: January 22, 2018
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                       ____________

PER CURIAM.

      In this appeal in a diversity case, Larry Rice challenges the district court’s1
dismissal of his complaint and adverse grant of summary judgment as to Appellees’

      1
       The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
counterclaim. Rice also challenges the district court’s order denying him leave to file
an amended complaint. Upon carefully reviewing the record and the parties’
arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. See Schaaf v. Residential
Funding Corp., 

, 549 (8th Cir. 2008) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo); see also Residential Funding Co. v. Terrace Mortg.
Co., 

, 915 (8th Cir. 2013) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de
novo). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Rice leave to amend his complaint. See Kmak v. Am. Century Cos., 

,
1034 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R.
47B.
                       ______________________________




                                         -2-