Larry Coffman appeals the district court’s 1 preservice dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) of his complaint. Following de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), we conclude the district court was correct that many of the conditions and actions of which Coffman complained did not implicate his federal rights, and his other allegations were insufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 4, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980) (§ 1983 encompasses violations of federal statutory as well as constitutional law); Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 785 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (pro se pleading must allege specific facts supporting its conclusions). Among its infirmities, Coffman’s complaint did not specify which of the many named defendants was responsible for each of the alleged harms. See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (to state § 1983 claim, plaintiff must allege defendant was personally involved in or had direct responsibility for incidents that resulted in injury).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.