Case Name: George POOLE, Appellant, v. Mary Catherine MORAN, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-20
Citations: 159 F. App'x 741
Docket Number: No. 05-3018
Parties: George POOLE, Appellant, v. Mary Catherine MORAN, Appellee.
Judges: Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 159
Pages: 741–742

Head Matter:
George POOLE, Appellant, v. Mary Catherine MORAN, Appellee.
No. 05-3018.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 7, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 20, 2005.
George Poole, St. Louis, MO, pro se.
Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
George Poole appeals the district court's 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal, without prejudice, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record and Poole's submissions on appeal, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (de novo review), we conclude the judgment of the district court was correct. Poole failed to allege any violation of his constitutional rights and, thus, failed to state a cognizable section 1983 claim. See Walker v. Reed, 104 F.3d 156, 157 (8th Cir.1997) (to state cognizable claim under § 1983, plaintiffs complaint must allege that conduct of defendant acting under color of state law deprived him of right, privilege, or immunity secured by Constitution or laws of United States). We reject Poole's disqual ification argument. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.