Here, Mr. Jenkins does not provide “any facts which indicate that the state postdeprivation remedies are inadequate or unavailable to redress the wrong.” Thompson v. Esham, No. 1:15-cv-553, 2016 WL 692542, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 22, 2016) (Barrett, J.). He has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Where a plaintiff “has not alleged any facts which indicate that the state post-deprivation remedies are inadequate or unavailable to redress the wrong,” a property-deprivation claim like this one must be dismissed. Thompson v. Esham, No. 1:15-cv-553, 2016 WL 692542, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 22, 2016) (citing Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 479 (6th Cir. 1995)); Brooks v. Dutton, 751 F.2d 197 (6th Cir. 1985) (affirming dismissal of a § 1983 action brought by a prisoner alleging that his personal property was stolen from his cell while he was hospitalized, because “there is no cause of action . . . unless plaintiff pleads and proves that state remedies are inadequate.”)
property-deprivation claim like this one must be dismissed. Thompson v. Esham, No. 1:15-cv-553, 2016 WL 692542, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 22, 2016) (citing Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 479 (6th Cir. 1995)); Brooks v. Dutton, 751 F.2d 197 (6th Cir. 1985) (affirming dismissal of a § 1983 action brought by a prisoner alleging that his personal property was stolen from his cell while he was hospitalized, because “there is no cause of action . . . unless plaintiff pleads and proves that state remedies are inadequate.”)
(citing Hudson, 468 U.S. at 534-36). Where a plaintiff “has not alleged any facts which indicate that the state postdeprivation remedies are inadequate or unavailable to redress the wrong,” a property-deprivation claim like this one must be dismissed. Thompson v. Esham, No. 1:15-cv-553, 2016 WL 692542, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 22, 2016) (citing Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 479 (6th Cir. 1995)); Brooks v. Dutton, 751 F.2d 197 (6th Cir. 1985) (affirming dismissal of a § 1983 action brought by a prisoner alleging that his personal property was stolen from his cell while he was hospitalized, because “there is no cause of action . . . unless plaintiff pleads and proves that state remedies are inadequate.”)
The Magistrate's Report and Recommendation found that, because Chapple failed to “allege[] any facts which indicate that the state post-deprivation remedies are inadequate or unavailable to redress the wrong,” his personal property claims must be dismissed. (ECF No. 24 at 19 (quoting Thompson v. Esham, 2016 WL 692542, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 22, 2016) (citing Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 479 (6th Cir. 1995)))). Chapple's second and ninth objections (ECF No. 26 at 6, 13) both contest the magistrate's conclusion.
Where a plaintiff “has not alleged any facts which indicate that the state post-deprivation remedies are inadequate or unavailable to redress the wrong, ” a property-deprivation claim like this one must be dismissed. Thompson v. Esham, No. 1:15-cv-553, 2016 WL 692542, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 22, 2016) (citing Copelandv. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 479 (6th Cir. 1995));
, ” a property claim like this one must be dismissed. Thompson v. Esham, No. 1:15-cv-553, 2016 WL 692542, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 22, 2016) (citing Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 479 (6th Cir. 1995)); Brooks v. Dutton, 751 F.2d 197 (6th Cir. 1985)
Where, like Chapple here, a “Plaintiff has not alleged any facts which indicate that the state post-deprivation remedies are inadequate or unavailable to redress the wrong, ” a claim must be dismissed. Thompson v. Esham, No. 1:15cv553, 2016 WL 692542, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 22, 2016) (citing Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 479 (6th Cir. 1995)); Brooks v. Dutton, 751 F.2d 197 (6th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that the personal property claims be DISMISSED.