James Germalic appeals from the order of the District Court 1 dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. Germalic also has a pending motion to add thirty-nine pages to his reply brief. Upon de novo review, we conclude that the District Court did not err in dismissing Germalie’s complaint for failure to state a claim. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting that pro se complaints should be liberally construed but nevertheless “must allege sufficient facts to support the claims advanced”); Ellis v. Norris, 179 F.3d 1078, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint where plaintiff “failed to allege facts supporting any individual defendant’s personal involvement or responsibility for the violations”); Reed v. Woodruff County, Ark., 7 F.3d 808, 810 (8th Cir. 1993) (explaining that to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant’s actions “amounted to a violation of a right ... protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States”); see also Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 222, 172 L.Ed.2d 142 (2008).

Accordingly, we affirm the District Court. In addition, we deny Germalie’s pending motion.