Opinion
No. 16-1176
08-29-2016
Cletis Goodman Plaintiff - Appellant v. Sanfford Pollack Defendant Jennifer Stehlik Ladman Defendant - Appellee Brody Duncan; State of Nebraska, Seward County Nebraska & Sheriff Department; Thomas R. Johnson; State of Nebraska Defendants Seward County, Nebraska; Seward County Sheriff's Office Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha [Unpublished] Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
Cletis Goodman appeals from the order of the District Court dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action that alleged due process violations related to the seizure of his personal property during a criminal investigation. After careful review, we conclude that Goodman could not proceed on a due-process claim because Nebraska law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (holding "that an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause . . . if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available"); State v. Agee, 741 N.W.2d 161, 168 (Neb. 2007) (noting in an appeal from an order overruling a motion for the return of property seized in a criminal case "that the government's disposition . . . of property does not moot a motion for return of the property"); see also Adams v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 813 F.3d 1151, 1154 (8th Cir. 2016) ("We review de novo a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss."); Spirtas Co. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 715 F.3d 667, 670-71 (8th Cir. 2013) ("This court can affirm on any basis supported in the record.").
The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. --------
We affirm the judgment of the District Court and deny the pending motion for sanctions.