United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2091

___________ Danny D. Goodroad, * * Appellant, * *
v. * * Jeffrey Bloomberg, Secretary of * Appeal from the United States Corrections, individually and in his * District Court for the official capacity; Douglas Weber, * District of South Dakota. Warden, South Dakota State * Penitentiary, individually and in his * [UNPUBLISHED] official capacity; Owen Spurrell, Major, * Special Security, South Dakota State * Penitentiary, individually and in his * official capacity; Ben Dearduff, * Executive Assistant, South Dakota * State Penitentiary, individually and in * his official capacity, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 9, 1997 Filed: October 15, 1997

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.The Honorable John B. Jones, United States District Judge for the District of 1 South Dakota. -2- SouthDakota State Penitentiary inmate Danny D. Goodroad appeals from th e District Court & s 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e) (West Supp. 1997) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1 § 1983 (1994) action. We affirm.
Goodroad alleged that his constitutio nal rights were violated when his incoming and outgoing mail was seized, returned, withheld, read, slowed, opened, photocopied, and “c ensured,” and handled and delivered in a way that could cause a breach o f privacy and the loss of contents. He claimed this conduct also violated a liberty interest conferred by a prison policy, and that a second prison policy was unconstitutiona l because it vio lated the rights of outside parties. He also claimed his access to th e courts w as impeded when he was placed in disciplinary segregation, and that th e aforementioned conduct was car ried out in retaliation for his accessing the courts and exercisi ng his civil rights. He claimed defendant prison officials authorized th e unconstitutional conduct through policy and direct and tacit authorization.

The District Court dismissed Goodroad & s action with prejudice for failure to state
a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). We review a section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii ) dism issal de novo , and will affirm if construing the allegations in the light mos t favorable to the plaintiff it appears beyond do ubt that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of f acts which would entitle him to relief. See Mitchell v. Farcass , 112 F.3d 1483 , 1490 (11th Cir. 1997) (applying Fed . R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard of review to section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissal); Carney v. Houst on , 33 F.3d 893, 894 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard of review).
We agree that Goodroad & s complaint failed to set forth sufficient facts to state a claim. See Martin v. Sargent , 780 F.2d 13 34, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985) (a pro se complaint must contain specific facts supporting its conclusions). We conclude that the-3-

District Court did

not abuse its discretion in declining to recuse, in refusing to transfer Goodroad & s case from the Southern to the Central Division, or in refusing to appoin t counsel. Finally, we deny Goodroad & s second motion for preliminary injunction.
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.