2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

12-4-2013 

# Asi a B r o w n v

. H a mi lt on T

o w nshi p P olice D ept

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 13-3193

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" Asi a B r o w n v

. H a mi lt on T

o w n ship P o l ic e D e pt " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1556. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/1556

### DLD

- 041 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 3

- 3193

___________ ASIA NICOLE BROWN ,

Appellant

v. HAMILTON TOWNSHIP POLICE DEP T MERCER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY; RALPH FRASCO, JR.; DAVID DELEON; SGT MICHAEL EVERETT; J FARLETTO; OFFICER ANAJA; EDWARD LUGO

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 13

- cv - 00260 ) District Judge: Honorable Michael A. Shipp

______ ______________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Due to a Jurisdictional Defect or for Possible S ummary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 November 15, 2013 Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : December 4, 2013 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Appellant Asia Nicole Brown filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that her civil rights had been violated in the course of her arrest and detention f or shoplifting. The District Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 282



### U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and Brown appealed. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.
W e have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 1 

### In conducting our review, we must liberally construe B rown ’s pro se filings, see Higgs v. Att’y Gen ., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011), and “ accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inference s that can be drawn therefrom,” Tourscher v. McCullough , 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999) ( citation omitted). In her complaint, Brown alleged that shortly after her arrest, she requested, and received, two sanitary napkins. Three h ours later, her repeated requests for additional feminine products were denied by the defendants. When Brown complained, Officer Deleon allegedly used a racial slur in response. Brown asserts that she reported Deleon’s behavior to his supervisor, defenda nt Everett, but that Everett and several other defendants merely mocked her as a result.
T he District Court properly dismissed the complaint because Brown failed to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 6 62, 678 (2009). As the District Court noted, allegations of verbal abuse or threats, absent any injury or damage, are not cognizable under § 1983. See McBride v. Deer , 240 F.3d 1287, 1291 n.3 (10th Cir. 2001) ; Freeman v. Arpaio , 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Ci r. 1997) (verbal abuse directed at religious

1 

### The District Court instructed Brown that she could move to reopen her case within 30 days by filing an amended complaint addressing the d eficiencies . Brown filed a notice of appeal prior to the expiration of the 30

- day period, and as such, can be said to have elected to stand on her complaint. See Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co. , 977 F.2d 848, 851 n.5 (3d Cir. 1992 )

. Accordingly, we posses s appellate jurisdiction. See , e.g. , Lucas v

. Twp. of Bethel , 319 F.3d 595, 600 (3d Cir. 2003) ( holding that an “order [was] final and appealable because plaintiffs have elected to stand on their complaint.”).3



### and ethnic background does not state a cognizable constitutional violation)

. Brown failed to allege any actual injury stemming from defendants’ conduct. Furthermore, when a pretrial detainee, such as Brown, ch allenges her conditions of confinement, “we must consider whether there has been a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Hubbard v. Taylor , 538 F.3d 229, 231 (3d Cir. 2005). In doing so, we must inquire “ whether those conditi ons amount to punishment of the detainee.” Bell v. Wolfish , 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979)

. While defendants’ failure to provide needed sanitary napkins for a few hours may have resulted in discomfort, it was de minimis, and certainly not sufficiently serious to implicate Brown’s constitutional rights. Cf. i d. at 542 (noting that “genuine privations and hardship over an extended period of time might raise serious questions under the Due Process Clause”).
B ased on the foregoing, we conclude this appeal presents no substantial question and, therefore, will summarily affirm

. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.