## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-3843

___________ Matthew P. Fuller, *
* Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Jeff Bloomberg, Secretary of * Corrections, SDDOC; Doug Weber, * [UNPUBLISHED] Warden, SDSP; Owen Spurrel, * Associate Warden; Robert Rae, * Unit Manager, SDSP; Dr. Regier, * fnu, SDDH; G.D. Zike, Sr., Physician * Assistant; Summers, fnu, Correctional * Counselor, SDSP; Johnson, fnu, * Correction Official, SDSP; Mary * Burggraaf, Administrative Remedy * Coordinator, SDSP; Justin, lnu, * Mental Health Therapist, SDSP; * Glen Dean, Mailroom Clerk, SDSP; * Tracy Summers, Nurse, SDDH; * Daughters, fnu, Corrections * Counselor, SDSP; Any John or * Jane Does, Correctional Officials, * SDSP; Any John or Jane Does, * Medical Officials, SDDH, *
* Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 19, 2007 Filed: November 7, 2007

___________-2- Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Matthew P. Fuller appeals the district c ourt’s preservice dismissal of his civilrights action and the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion. We affirm in part and remand in part.
Fuller brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action cl aiming Eighth and First Amendment violations. He alleged that he contract ed Hepatitis C from a r azor while incarcerated at the South Dakota State Penitentiary (SDSP), that numerous SDSP officials were deliberately indifferent by permitting cross- contamination between inmates’ razors, that defendants failed to provi de him with information re garding Hepatitis C, and that the prison mail room rejected his incomi ng personal mail, specifically two packages from his parents containing photocopied pa ges of information about Hepatitis C.
Upon de novo review, see Moore v. Sims , 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B ) dismissal); Cooper v. Schriro , 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal), we affirm the dismissal of the deliberate-indifference clai ms. First, the SDSP policies that Fuller alleged were in place--requiri ng prison staff to wear gloves when handling inmates’ razors and to place each inmate’s razors into a disinfected bin marked with the inmate’s name and cell num ber--belie his asse rtion that defendants knew of but deliberately disregarded an excessive health risk associated with razors. SeeFarmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 837-38 (1994) (deliber ate-indifference standard in conditions-of-confinement cases); cf. Butler v. Fletcher , 465 F.3d 340, 345-46 (8th Cir. 2006) (where evidence demonstrated that County implemented policies addressing serious health risk that tubercul osis poses to pretrial detainees, district court properly dismissed deliberate-indifferen ce claim against sheri ff, even if sheriff might have taken other reasonable meas ures to abate risk), cert. denied , 127 S. Ct.-3- 2128 (2007). Second, Fuller admitted in his complaint that only eight days after his diagnosis, an officer gave him some inform ation about the disease, and the complaint attachments show that eleven days after the diagnosis the warden informed Fuller how he could retrieve a dditional information.
The district court did not address Fuller’s claim about his incoming personal mail, even after Fuller brought this omission to the court’s attention in his Rule 59(e) motion. Because a prisoner’s constitutiona l right to send and receive mail may be restricted only to advance leg itimate penological interests, seePhelps v. U.S. Fed. Gov’t , 15 F.3d 735, 740 (8th Cir. 1994), we belie ve that the allegations sufficiently stated a First Amendment claim to avoid preservice dismissal.
Accordingly, we affirm the dismissa l of the Eighth Amendment deliberateindifference claims. We remand the Fi rst Amendment mail claim for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

_____________________________