2011 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

7-20-2011 

# J o y C r a me r v

. D onn a P r ue y
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 . 10-4667

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_2011

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 2011 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

" J o y C r a me r v

. D onn a P r uey " (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 845. 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_2011/845

### 1 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 10

- 4 66 7

_____________ JOY L. CRAMER ; WILMER H. SCOTT , Appellant s

v. DONNA PRUEY; ALLEN E. PRUEY; SHERRY BELL (PRUEY ) SOCCIO; DONALD E. RUSSLER , JR.; CONNIE C . RUSSLER; TROOPER JESSE L. DUMM, individually; TROOPER STEVEN C. PETERSON, individually; TROOPER KEVIN REESE, individually; ROBERT M. BECK, Huntingdon Valley Dog Warden, individually,

_____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court f or the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Civ. No. 10

- 796 ) District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell

_____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a),

J uly 1 4, 2011 BEFORE: SLOVITER , F UENTES , and FISHER , Circuit Judges

( File d: July 20, 2011 )

_____________ OPINION OF THE COURT

_____________ FUENTES, Circuit Judge

.

### 2

Appellants Joy L. Cramer and Wilmer H. Scott brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their constitutional rights to equal protection and du e process. On appeal, they contend that the District Court improperly dis missed their claims against the Russler and Pruey families because although not state actors, they were “involved with the C ommonwealth Appellees State Tro opers who on all occasions violated the A ppellants’ Civil Rights.” (Appellant s ’ Br. 14)

. While we take this language to refer to a n alleged civil conspiracy among the private parties and the Commonwealth defendants , see Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild
LLP , 615 F.3d 159, 175

- 76 (3d Cir. 2010) , to the extent the District Court correctly dismissed all of the § 1983 claims against the Commonwealth defendants, any § 1983 conspiracy claim involving the private actors must also fail

. Accordingly, h aving reviewed the D istrict Court’s orders of October 22 and November 15, 2010, dismissing all of Appellants’ causes of action for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we hereby affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court.