Louis Charles Hamilton, II, appeals from the final judgment entered in the *338 District Court 1 for the District of North Dakota, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim. For reversal, Hamilton argues he has a fundamental right to challenge the constitutionality of state laws. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We review the dismissal de novo. See Whitmore v. Harrington, 204 F.3d 784, 784 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal); Burton v. Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Comm’n, 23 F.3d 208, 209 (8th Cir.) (dismissal for lack of standing), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 951, 115 S.Ct. 366, 130 L.Ed.2d 318 (1994). We agree with the district court that Hamilton lacked standing to challenge the state laws in question, and that defendants were not subject to suit or hable for damages. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (requirements for standing); Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (state and its officials acting in their official capacities are not “persons” within meaning of § 1983); Treleven v. University of Minnesota, 73 F.3d 816, 818 (8th Cir. 1996) (Eleventh Amendment prohibits § 1983 suit seeking monetary damages from individual state officers in their official capacities).

Accordingly, we affirm.