Chambers v. Conard

547 F. App'x 807
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided December 11, 2013·No. No. 13-3024·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

Chambers v. Conard, 547 F. App'x 807 (8th Cir. 2013).

547 F. App'x 807 (Chambers v. Conard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chambers v. Ebbert
M.D. Pennsylvania, 2019