PER CURIAM. Samuel Lipari appeals the district court’s orders granting defendants’ motions to dismiss his civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims, denying his motion to amend his complaint, and denying his post-judgment request for the district court judge’s recusal. Following careful review, we find no basis for reversal. See Charles Brooks Co. v.
Georgia-Pacific, LLC, 552 F.3d 718, 721-23 (8th Cir.2009) (recognizing de novo review of a dismissal and affirming the dismissal of one plaintiffs individual claims because he failed to allege an injury to confer standing); Regions Bank v. J.R. Oil Co., 387 F.3d 721, 728-29 (8th Cir.2004) (explaining, to have standing to bring a civil RICO claim, plaintiff must have suffered an injury “by reason of’ a RICO violation and the showing of an injury requires proof of a concrete financial loss, and not mere injury to a valuable intangible property interest); see also United States ex rel. Joshi v. St.
Luke’s Hosp., 441 F.3d 552, 555 (8th Cir.2006) (stating abuse of discretion review for denial of a motion to amend a complaint, but de novo review of the underlying legal conclusion that a proposed amendment to the complaint would have been futile); Hooker v. Story, 159 F.3d 1139, 1140 (8th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (declaring the abuse of discretion standard of review for recusal motions). We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. . The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.