
    Stephen C. CURTISS, Appellant, v. Charles HIGGINS; Craig Malmberg; D. Ensminger; Frank Roffe, Appellees.
    No. 05-4118.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 30, 2007.
    Filed: May 4, 2007.
    Stephen C. Curtiss, Anamosa, LA, pro se.
    H. Loraine Wallace, Attorney General’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Appellees.
    Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
   [UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Steven Curtiss (Curtiss), an Iowa prisoner, appeals the district court’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of his civil complaint. Having conducted de novo review of the dismissal, and having accepted the facts in the complaint as true and construing them in Curtiss’s favor, see Springdale Educ. Ass’n v. Springdale Sch. Dist., 133 F.3d 649, 651 (8th Cir.1998), we find the district court’s analysis to be thorough and well-reasoned, and we reject Curtiss’s arguments for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
     
      
      . We do not consider the proposed amended complaints Curtiss has filed on appeal. See Winthrop Res. Corp. v. Eaton Hydraulics, Inc., 361 F.3d 465, 473 (8th Cir.2004) (noting the well-settled rule that documents presented for the first time on appeal are generally not considered part of the record for review by the appellate court); cf. Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (stating the dismissal of an action ordinarily terminates the right to amend the complaint).
     