¶1*771David W. Rynders, Naples, FL, argued, for Appellant.
¶2Eric M. Trelz, St. Louis, MO, argued (Beverly D. Garner, on the brief), for Ap-pellees Gil Groeper, Pat Spoonster, Leon Stonebarger, Mike Baker, and Warren County.
¶3D. Keith Henson, St. Louis, MO, argued, for Appellees Fern Goodfellow, Nelva Owens, Lynn Miller, Donald Patrick, and North East Community.
¶4Brent J. Burtin, St. Louis, MO, argued (G.N. Beckemeier, Jr., on the brief), for Appellees Shelly Vaccaro and James Vac-caro.
¶5Before BOWMAN, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
¶7Robyne Mahaney, James Mahaney, and Jackie Morton (collectively “plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s1 order granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The plaintiffs are former residents of a low income housing project in Warren County, Missouri. They allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to violate their civil rights.2See 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). After conducting lengthy hearings, the district court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact and, accordingly, entered judgments in favor of the defendants. We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment determinations. See Amir v. St. Lowis Univ., 184 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 1999).
¶8The plaintiffs contend that the defendants conspired against them by building a wall, digging a ditch, engaging in racial steering practices, denying the resi*772dents of the project basic police protection, ordering the operator of the project to provide security for the housing project residents, filing a nuisance suit against the project, and threatening to use the zoning laws as a vehicle for closing the project. After reviewing the entire record in this case, we conclude that the plaintiffs’ claims patently lack merit. The plaintiffs advance nothing more than bare allegations and rank speculation. “Speculation and conjecture are not enough to prove that a conspiracy exists.”3Mettler v. Whitledge, 165 F.3d 1197, 1206 (8th Cir.1999). Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the district court.