Case ID: f-appx_248/html/0742-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James HOSKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TCF NATIONAL BANK, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 06-4261.
    United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 20, 2007.
    
    Decided Sept. 21, 2007.
    James Hoskins, Oregon, WI, pro se.
    Before Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge, Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge, and Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.
    
      
       The appellee was not served with process in the district court and is not participating in this appeal. After an examination of the appellant's brief and the record, we have con-eluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the appellant’s brief and the record. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   ORDER

Wisconsin inmate James Hoskins sued TCF National Bank under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that it paid out about $3,000 on approximately 40 fraudulent checks that were drawn on his account. The district court screened Hoskins’s amended complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)(1).

On appeal Hoskins continues to press his contention that the bank violated his constitutional rights. But, as the district court observed, Hoskins cannot proceed with his federal claim under § 1983 because his allegations against the bank describe purely private business activities. The bank is not a state actor. See Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50, 119 S.Ct. 977, 143 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999); Gayman v. Principal Fin. Servs., Inc., 311 F.3d 851, 852-53 (7th Cir.2002); Mitchell v. Kirk, 20 F.3d 936, 938 (8th Cir.1994). Accordingly, the court properly dismissed Hoskins’s complaint.

The district court told Hoskins that he incurred one “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for filing a complaint that fails to state a claim, and we note that he now has incurred a second “strike” for filing a frivolous appeal.

Affirmed.