Darlene Chambers appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), we hold that dismissal of the complaint was proper.

Chambers, whose husband James was executed by the State of Missouri, sought through this action to enjoin the Missouri Attorney General, an assistant attorney general, and a prosecuting attorney from destroying evidence Chambers believes would prove that a crucial witness committed perjury during her husband’s trial. She also sought to enjoin the Chief Justice and a deputy clerk of the Missouri Supreme Court from denying her the right to file in that court a motion to protect the evidence.

We agree with the district court that Chambers failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, because she *538 did not allege facts indicating a violation of her rights under the Constitution or federal statutes, as required for section 1983 litigation. See Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 536 (8th Cir. 1999); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985) (although liberally construed, pro se complaint must contain specific facts supporting its conclusions). We note that Chambers did not allege that the defendants prevented her from filing her motion to protect the evidence in the state circuit court.

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Chambers’s motion to supplement the record on appeal.