[UNPUBLISHED]

Missouri inmate John C. Skinner appeals from the district court’s 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915A order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the State of Missouri and the Attorney General of Missouri, Jeremiah Nixon. Having carefully reviewed the record de novo, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we agree with the court that Skinner’s challenge to the confiscation of money in his inmate account pursuant to the Missouri Incarceration Reimbursement Act (MIRA) does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (intentional deprivation of property does not violate due process when meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available). Finally, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Skinner appointment of counsel. See Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).