
    Calvin C. HOLLOWELL, Appellant, v. Bryan E. HOSTO, Attorney, Hosto, Buchan, Prater, and Lawrence P.L.L.C.; Charles J. Buchan, Attorney; Mark Sexton, Attorney; Paul Andrew Prater, Attorney; Beth Collier, Deputy Clerk Sherwood District Court; Hosto Buchan Prater & Lawrence, PLLC, Appellees.
    No. 10-1911.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 9, 2010.
    Filed: Aug. 12, 2010.
    
      Calvin C. Hollowell, Little Rock, AR, pro se.
    Paul Prater, Hosto & Buchan, Little Rock, AR, Monty Vaughan Baugh, David M. Fuqua, Fuqua & Campbell, Little Rock, AR, for Appellees.
    Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Calvin Hollowell appeals an order of the District Court dismissing his civil action related to state garnishment proceedings. Upon careful de novo review, see Carter v. Arkansas, 392 F.3d 965, 968 (8th Cir.2004), we conclude that based on the allegations in Hollowell’s complaint, he can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief on the claims he asserted under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, as well as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (holding that a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face; plaintiffs obligation to provide grounds of entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions). Accordingly, we modify the District Court’s order to reflect that all of the claims asserted in the complaint are dismissed with prejudice, and we affirm the order as modified. 
      
      . The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
     
      
      . We do not construe the complaint as asserting an independent claim under 42 U.S.C. § 407.
     