United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 13-2837
                        ___________________________

                                Wade Charles Heiden

                        lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

                                            v.

Unknown Deputy Clerk; Hamilton County Clerks Office; Hamilton County, Iowa

                      lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Northern District of Iowa - Ft. Dodge
                                  ____________

                            Submitted: October 22, 2013
                              Filed: October 23, 2013
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Charles Heiden, a federal inmate, appeals from an order of the District Court1
dismissing his pro se complaint prior to service under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

      1
      The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.
Heiden alleged that a state-court deputy clerk improperly signed a document on
behalf of a state-court judge, and that, as a consequence, Heiden received an invalid
conviction and sentence in federal court. Upon careful de novo review, see Moore
v. Sims, 

, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (noting de novo review of
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissals), we agree with the District Court that Heiden failed to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted, see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

, 555, 570 (2007) (noting that a plaintiff’s obligation to provide grounds for
relief requires more than labels and conclusions; a complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead sufficient facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                         ______________________________




                                         -2-