
    Conraad L. HOEVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H. ANDREWS, Colonel Chief of Security, C. Chason, Assistant Warden of Operations, P. Grice, classification supervisor, E. Howard, correctional supervisor, Florida department of corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-11110
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Nov. 16, 2015.
    Conraad L. Hoever, Madison, FL, pro se.
    
      Madison Cl Warden, Madison, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Pam Bondi, Attorney General’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Conraad Hoever, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his third amended complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On appeal, Hoever argues that the third amended complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a claim for retaliation under the First Amendment. After review, we affirm.

The third amended complaint does not name E. Howard as a defendant and does not include any allegations of fact relating to Howard. Hoever has therefore abandoned any claim against Howard in this action. C.f. Dresdner Bank AG v. M/V OLYMPIA VOYAGER, 463 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir.2006) (quotation -omitted) (“An amended pleading supersedes the former pleading; the original pleading is abandoned by the amendment, and is no longer a part of the pleader’s averments against his adversary.”).

As to the remaining three defendants, to state a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the third amended complaint must adequately allege: (1) that Hoever’s speech or act was constitutionally protected; (2) that the defendants’ retaliatory conduct adversely affected the protected speech; and (3) that there is a causal connection between the retaliatory actions and the adverse effect on the speech. See Douglas v. Yates, 535 F.3d 1316, 1321 (11th Cir.2008). The third amended complaint fails to allege facts to support Hoever’s conclusion that his transfer to a different prison adversely affected his protected speech and that the defendants were subjectively motivated to transfer Hoever because he complained of the conditions of his confinement. See Smith v. Mosley, 532 F.3d 1270, 1278 (11th Cir.2008) (“The causal connection inquiry asks whether the defendants were subjectively motivated to discipline because [the prisoner] complained of some of the conditions of his confinement.”). Absent non-conclusory allegations supporting two of the three elements of a retaliation claim, the third amended complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Dimanche v. Brown, 783 F.3d 1204, 1214 (11th Cir.2015).
     