Case Name: James B. WINKE, Appellant, v. Gerald C. DERBY, acting as Temporary Receiver of Progas Service, Inc.; William Scott Power, attorney who claims to have been counsel for Progas Service, Inc.; Daniel P. Wilson, Judge for Eighth Judicial District of Iowa in and for Lee County at Fort Madison, IA, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-18
Citations: 133 F. App'x 337
Docket Number: No. 04-2712
Parties: James B. WINKE, Appellant, v. Gerald C. DERBY, acting as Temporary Receiver of Progas Service, Inc.; William Scott Power, attorney who claims to have been counsel for Progas Service, Inc.; Daniel P. Wilson, Judge for Eighth Judicial District of Iowa in and for Lee County at Fort Madison, IA, Appellees.
Judges: Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 337–338

Head Matter:
James B. WINKE, Appellant, v. Gerald C. DERBY, acting as Temporary Receiver of Progas Service, Inc.; William Scott Power, attorney who claims to have been counsel for Progas Service, Inc.; Daniel P. Wilson, Judge for Eighth Judicial District of Iowa in and for Lee County at Fort Madison, IA, Appellees.
No. 04-2712.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted April 27, 2005.
Decided May 18, 2005.
James B. Winke, Fort Madison, IA, pro se.
Brent Ruthern, Aspelmeier & Fisch, Burlington, IA, Pamela Dawn Griebel, Attorney General’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Appellees.
Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James Winke appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court for the Southern District of Iowa dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. For reversal, he argues that the district court should have allowed him to amend his complaint. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court's denial of a postdismissal motion to amend, see Niagara of Wis. Paper Corp. v. Paper Indus. Union-Mgmt. Pension Fund, 800 F.2d 742, 749 (8th Cir.1986), and we find no abuse of discretion here. The conduct alleged in Winke's initial complaint did not amount to the violation of a constitutional or federal right for purposes of section 1983, and Winke's proposed amended complaint did not cure this defect. See Holloway v. Dobbs, 715 F.2d 390, 392 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (district court is justified in denying motion to amend where amended complaint could not survive motion to dismiss).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.