Michael Bauermeister appeals the district court’s 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dis *522 missal of his complaint, in which he requested that criminal charges be brought against the defendant. Upon careful review, we conclude that the dismissal was proper. See United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124, 99 S.Ct. 2198, 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979) (“[w]hether to prosecute and what charges to file or bring before a grand jury are decisions that generally rest in the prosecutor’s discretion”); cf. Roll v. Wayzata State Bank, 397 F.2d 124, 127 (8th Cir. 1968) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff failed to plead intelligible grounds for federal jurisdiction; basis for federal jurisdiction must affirmatively appear clearly and distinctly). We further conclude that, to the extent Mr. Bauermeister has attempted to advance a new claim on appeal, that claim is not properly before this court. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating general rule that claims not presented in district court may not be advanced for first time on appeal).

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