PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Steven Sera brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his rights under the First Amendment when they denied him a publication that had been sent to him from outside the prison. The district court granted defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity. Sera appeals. Having carefully reviewed the record de novo and considered Sera’s arguments for reversal, we agree with the district court’s reasons for granting
summary judgment to defendants on the claim. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 414-19, 109 S.Ct. 1874, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989); Winslow v. Smith, 696 F.3d 716, 730-31 (8th Cir.2012) (standard of review); Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 983, 986 (8th Cir.2004) (appellate court conducts independent review of evidence to determine whether there has been exaggerated response to concerns of prison, but accords great deference to judgment and expertise of prison officials, particularly on decisions implicating institutional security). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. .
Sera raised other claims in his complaint, but in his appellate brief, he does not contest their disposition. See Griffith v. City of Des Moines, 387 F.3d 733, 739 (8th Cir.2004) (claims not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned). . The Honorable Joe J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).