Opinion
No. 13-2113
2013-10-11
Jeffrey Alan Soboroff Plaintiff - Appellant v. U.S. Federal Government; U.S. Marshals Service; Unknown Mansfield, Rev.; Muscatine County Jail, from member case 4:12-cv-238; David Marcowitz; Julie Chyma, Nurse Practitioner; Christie Scotts, Nurse; Ashely Smith, Nurse; Gina Wappen, Nurse; Tanya Bishop; Crump, Sgt.; Russel, Chaplan; Vance, Chaplan; Don Buress; Lana Reed; Polk County Jail; Ottumwa Residential Facility; Leavenworth Detention Center; U.S. Attorney General; Unknown White, Sheriff; Unknown Boulton, Lt.; - White, from member case 4:12-cv-238; Naylor, from member case 4:12-cv-238; Federal Public Defender's Office; Muscatine County; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Ross A. Walters Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
[Unpublished]
Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
Federal prisoner Jeffrey Soboroff appeals the district court's dismissal, without prejudice, of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint challenging an alleged deprivation of a "religious accommodation" and other vaguely described conditions of confinement. We grant Soboroff's motion to supplement his brief.
The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
Upon de novo review, we conclude that the dismissal was proper because Soboroff failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (in civil action in which prisoner seeks redress from governmental entity or employee of governmental entity, court shall dismiss complaint if it fails to state claim upon which relief may be granted); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-83 (2009) (complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state claim plausible on its face; threadbare recitals of elements of cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements are not entitled to assumption of truth); see also Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (de novo standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.