George Poole v. Mary Catherine Moran

159 F. App'x 741
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedDecember 20, 2005
Docket05-3018
StatusUnpublished

This text of 159 F. App'x 741 (George Poole v. Mary Catherine Moran) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
George Poole v. Mary Catherine Moran, 159 F. App'x 741 (8th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

George Poole appeals the district court’s 1 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 *742 ification argument. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Walker v. Reed
104 F.3d 156 (Eighth Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
159 F. App'x 741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-poole-v-mary-catherine-moran-ca8-2005.