
    Kalvin M. LOYD; Patricia Loyd, Plaintiffs-Appellants Kaltrice Loyd; Patrick Loyd, by and through Next Friend Patricia Thomas Loyd; Jarvis M. Loyd, by and through Next Friend Patricia Thomas Loyd; Patrice M. Loyd, by and through Next Friend Patricia Thomas Loyd; Patricia A. Loyd, by and through Next Friend Patricia Thomas Loyd, Plaintiffs v. James CORWIN; Chief Darryl Forte, Defendants-Appellees City of Kansas City, Missouri, Defendant Board of Police Commissioners; Charles Huth; Robert Richardson; Barry Nolan; Chad Fenwick; Mary Bickford; Joseph Daneff; Scott A. Selock; Chad E. Safranek; Garrett D. Polich; Douglas G. Silk; Guy E. Kirtley; Keith M. Ericsson; Eric J. Roeder; Robert E. Browning, Jr.; Granvel E. Greenwell; Michael L. Glass; Justin E. Crump; Owen Farris; Larry Weinhold; Robert Evans; Aaron Hendershot; John Keil; Robert Wisdom; Kip Akerson; Richard R. Buente, # 3061; Michael Miller, # 4024; Richard Dyer, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-2897.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 28, 2015.
    Filed Dec. 30, 2015.
    Kalvin M. Loyd, Kansas City, MO, pro se.
    Patricia Loyd, Kansas City, MO, pro se.
    P. Benjamin Cox, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, MO (Chris Koster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, on the brief), for ap-pellees James Corwin, Chief Darryl Forte, and Joseph Daneff.
    
      Tara M. Kelly, Asst. City Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellees Robert Richardson and Richard Dyer.
    Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In this properly removed action, Kalvin and Patricia Loyd appeal after the district court dismissed their civil rights complaint, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint. See Garland v. Peebles, 1 F.3d 683, 686 (8th Cir.1993) (dismissal for failure to prosecute is reviewed for abuse of discretion; dismissal is proper when there has been clear record of delay by plaintiff). We additionally conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Loyds’ motion for appointment of counsel. See Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir.2006) (denial of motion for appointment of counsel is reviewed for abuse of discretion; discussing relevant factors).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
     