Minnesota inmate Vincent Michael Holthaus appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the District of Minnesota dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Holthaus claimed that defendants conspired to deprive him of his due process and equal protection rights by selectively prosecuting him and sentencing him more harshly than others who were similarly situated. After carefully reviewing the record, we agree with the district court that Holthaus’s complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support his claims, see Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 *174 (8th Cir. 1985), and that the claims would in any event be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.