UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ DERIC VAN FLEET, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. LT. WRIGHT; LT. KARR, Defendants - Appellees. No. 15-1038 (D.C. No. 1:14- CV-03402-LTB) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , MURPHY , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Deric Van Fleet appeals from the distri ct court’s dismissal of his amended prisoner complaint as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). When he filed his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ag ainst correctional officers Lieutenants Wright and Karr, Mr. Van Fleet was in th e custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections. According to his brief, he was scheduled for release on March 18, 2015. Interpreting the amended complaint libe rally because Mr. Van Fleet does not have counsel, the district c ourt deduced (1) a due process claim for deprivation of

* After examining the brie fs and appellate record, this panel determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, how ever, for its persuasive valu e consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### April 13, 2015
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - personal property based on alle gations that the defendants misplaced Mr. Van Fleet’s personal property when he was in segregation and some of it was missing, and (2) an access to courts claim based on allegations that the defendants looked at his legal work and misplaced so me of it relating to another lawsuit. On the due process claim, the district court said that if the personal property was contraband, Mr. Van Fleet lacked a due process property interest; if it was not contraband, the claim fails be cause the complaint alleged only negligence; and if the complaint somehow did allege intentional de privation, it nonetheless failed to allege that either the prison grieva nce procedure or recourse to state court constituted an inadequate post-deprivation remedy. As to the access to courts claim, the district court said the amended complaint failed to identify any nonfrivolous legal claim Mr. Van Fleet was unable to pursue and thus did not allege the actual injury that is required for such a claim. We review the dismissal of the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for a buse of discretion. See McWilliams v. Colorado , 121 F.3d 573, 574-75 (10th Cir. 1997). As the district court did, we interpret Mr. Van Fleet’s pro se complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). In doing so, we agree with th e district court that, at most, the amended complaint attempts to allege claims for due proces s deprivation of pers onal property and access to the courts. We further agree the amende d complaint must be dismissed as legally frivolous.- 3 - In his brief on appeal, Mr. Van Fleet ta kes issue with the district court’s analysis in only two statements. First, he states: “I feel the District courts misunderstood what grounds of relief I was asking. I am asking monetary compensation for all property lost . . . .” Aplt. Br. at 4. Second, he states: “The District court misunderstood my cl aim, or I worded it wrong.” Id. There is no indication the district cour t misunderstood the claim or misunderstood that Mr. Van Fleet seeks money damages. We have examined the amended complain t. We affirm dismissal of the due process property claim because Mr. Van Fleet failed to allege he was afforded inadequate process. See Hudson v. Palmer , 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Gee v. Pacheco , 627 F.3d 1178, 1194 (10th Cir. 2010). We affirm di smissal of his access to the courts claim because he fail ed to allege actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343, 349-55 (1996); Penrod v. Zavaras , 94 F.3d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir. 1996). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court and deny Mr. Van Fleet’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge