[DO NOT PUBLISH]


             IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                     FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                       ________________________                   FILED
                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              No. 09-10995                ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                                             JANUARY 6, 2010
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                                                                JOHN LEY
                        ________________________
                                                              ACTING CLERK

                 D. C. Docket No. 08-00473-CV-OC-10-GRJ

JOHN W. MANN,

                                                            Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                   versus

WALTER A. MCNEIL, SECRETARY,
Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections,
JIMMIE O. ATMORE,
GREG WILLIAMS,
FNU MARSH,
Sargeant,
FNU MALLORY,
Sargeant, et al.,

                                                         Defendants-Appellees.

                        ________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Florida
                      _________________________

                              (January 6, 2010)

Before MARCUS, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

      John W. Mann, a pro se prisoner, appeals the sua sponte dismissal of his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint alleging an Eighth Amendment violation for

cruel and unusual punishment, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). On appeal, Mann contends that: (1) the district court

erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim after it determined that

Mann was not entitled to damages for mental anguish and suffering because he

failed to allege sufficient physical injury; and (2) he is entitled to declaratory relief

in the form of a prison transfer. After thorough review, we affirm.

      We review de novo an appeal from a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) sua

sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

taking all factual allegations as true. Douglas v. Yates, 

, 1319-20

(11th Cir. 2008). The same standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

also govern § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals. 

“Pro se pleadings are held

to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore,

be liberally construed.” Boxer X v. Harris, 

, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006).

      “No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail,

prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while

in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). “In



                                            2
order to avoid dismissal under § 1997e(e), a prisoner’s claims for emotional or

mental injury must be accompanied by allegations of physical injuries that are

greater than de minimis.” Mitchell v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 

, 1312-13 (11th Cir. 2002). We have previously held that a forced “dry

shave” only amounted to a de minimis injury. Harris v. Garner, 

,

1286-87 (11th Cir. 1999), vacated, 

, reinstated in relevant part, 

, 972 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc); see also Nolin v. Isbell, 

,

1258 n.4 (11th Cir. 2000) (bruises received during an arrest were non-actionable de

minimis injury). Even though § 1997e(e) bars damages for mental or emotional

injury, it does not affect the availability of declaratory or injunctive relief. See

.

       Here, under our case law, the injuries that Mann complains of -- including

the vague injuries to his back, the scrapes and marks on his knees and legs, the lack

of personal items, the lapse of time in reordering medication, the window-cleaning

assignment, and the discontinuance of his pass for showers twice a day -- amount

to de minimis physical injuries.          See 

n.4.1             Section




       1
          Mann’s alleged eye infection and his injuries stemming from his tooth extraction were
not alleged in his complaint and therefore have been abandoned. See Skinner v. City of Miami,

, 348 (11th Cir. 1995) (“[A]s a general rule, an appellate court will not consider a
legal issue or theory raised for the first time on appeal.”).

                                                3
1997e(e), therefore, bars Mann’s claim for damages as a result of mental anguish

and suffering. See 

.

       Moreover, Mann contends that all of the alleged abuse by prison officials

stemmed from one initial complaint at his former prison, for which he already

received a prison transfer. Thus, Mann’s current request for declaratory relief in

the form of a prison transfer is moot. See Smith v. Allen, 

, 1267

(11th Cir. 2007) (“The general rule in our circuit is that a transfer or a release of a

prisoner from prison will moot that prisoner’s claims for injunctive and declaratory

relief.”).     Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Mann’s

complaint.2

       AFFIRMED.




       2
           In addition, Mann’s motion to submit supplemental records is DENIED as moot.

                                               4