United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                     ___________

                                     No. 11-1534
                                     ___________

Carolyn Owens,                       *
                                     *
            Appellant,               *
                                     * Appeal from the United States
      v.                             * District Court for the
                                     * Eastern District of Missouri.
Shelly Gooding; Deborah Spraggins;   *
Jim Merlo; Ruthanne Willeke; Amy     *      [UNPUBLISHED]
Kubsh; Tiffany Lovelace Brown;       *
Cora Taylor; Midwest Counseling and *
Consulting,                          *
                                     *
            Appellees.               *
                                ___________

                              Submitted: May 31, 2011
                                 Filed: June 8, 2011
                                  ___________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
                        ___________

PER CURIAM.

        Carolyn Owens appeals from the District Court’s1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),
(ii) pre-service dismissal of her action relating to the removal of her cousin’s children
from her care. Upon careful review, see Wilson v. Johnston, 

(8th Cir.
2003) (unpublished per curiam) (reviewing § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissal for abuse of

      1
        The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
discretion); Moore v. Sims, 

, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)
(reviewing § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissal de novo), we find no basis for reversal, and
we agree with the reasons provided by the District Court. See Elk Grove Unified Sch.
Dist. v. Newdow, 

, 12–13 (2004) (stating that in general, it is appropriate
for federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to state courts; and it
might be appropriate for federal courts to decline to hear case involving elements of
domestic relationship even when divorce, alimony, or child custody is not strictly at
issue); Andrews v. City of W. Branch, Iowa, 

, 918 (8th Cir. 2006)
(noting that to state claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege violation of
constitutional right committed by person acting under color of state law); Miner v.
Brackney, 

, 955 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (reiterating that claims for
defamation and slander are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); see also 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (stating that a court may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction);
Gibson v. Weber, 

, 342 (8th Cir. 2005) (noting that Congress has
unambiguously granted district courts discretion in § 1367(c) to dismiss supplemental
state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed); Stone v. Harry, 

, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (explaining that although pro se complaints are to be
construed liberally, they must allege sufficient facts to support claims advanced; court
will not supply additional facts or construct legal theory).

      Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.
                     ______________________________




                                           -2-