Chambers v. Conard
Opinion
Roscoe Chambers appeals the district [808] court’s1 28 U.S.C. § 1915A preservice dismissal of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Upon de novo review, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (standard of review), we conclude that Chambers failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (complaint must state “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”; mere conclusory statements are insufficient to support claim). We therefore affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
547 F. App'x 807 (Chambers v. Conard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.