Case Name: Timothy Sterling DONALDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James PURKETT, Superintendent, Farmington Correctional Center; Dora Schriro, Director, Department of Corrections; Defendants-Appellees, Jay Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri; John & Jane Does, Record's Office, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-04-23
Citations: 33 F. App'x 233
Docket Number: No. 01-3262
Parties: Timothy Sterling DONALDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James PURKETT, Superintendent, Farmington Correctional Center; Dora Schriro, Director, Department of Corrections; Defendants-Appellees, Jay Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri; John & Jane Does, Record’s Office, Defendants.
Judges: Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 33
Pages: 233–234

Head Matter:
Timothy Sterling DONALDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James PURKETT, Superintendent, Farmington Correctional Center; Dora Schriro, Director, Department of Corrections; Defendants-Appellees, Jay Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri; John & Jane Does, Record’s Office, Defendants.
No. 01-3262.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2002.
Filed April 23, 2002.
Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Timothy Sterling Donaldson complains that the State of Missouri wrongfully calculated his prison sentence, extending it by seventy days. Although Donaldson asked his parole officer why his sentence was extended, he did not file any grievance or lawsuit while incarcerated. After his release, Donaldson filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). The district court dismissed Donaldson's complaint because Donaldson's sentence miscalculation was governed by Missouri law, thus alleged a violation of state law, not federal law, and Donaldson had not claimed that the defendants were personally involved in his extended incarceration. In the alternative, the district court found the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. On appeal, Donaldson challenges each of the district court's reasons for dismissing his complaint. Having reviewed the record de novo and considered the facts and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them in the light most favorable to Donaldson, we conclude the district court correctly decided that Donaldson can prove no set of facts that entitle him to the relief he claims. Burton v. Richmond, 276 F.3d 973, 975 (8th Cir.2002).
Donaldson is not entitled to relief under § 1983 because he has not alleged a violation of federal law. Calculation of Donaldson's state sentence is governed by state law, thus any mistakes in the calculation are violations of state law. "[A] violation of state law, without more, does not state a claim under the federal Constitution or 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Bagley v. Rogerson, 5 F.3d 325, 328 (8th Cir.1993). Further, Donaldson has not claimed, as he must to succeed under § 1983, that the defendant corrections officials directly participated in the alleged deprivation. Tlamka v. Serrell, 244 F.Sd 628, 635 (8th Cir.2001). No liability attaches to supervisors through respondeat superior theory. Id. Because Donaldson does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we see no need to address the qualified immunity issue.
We thus affirm the district court's dismissal of Donaldson's complaint. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
The Honorable David D. Noce, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).