* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 7 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ANGELA C.R. DESERRATO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, Bloomington, Illinois,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-4088 (D.C. No. 96-CV-63) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO, ANDERSON, and BRISCOE, Circuit Jud ges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff Angela DeSerrato appeals from a district court order dismissing her civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Plaintiff brought this action to redress defendant State FarmInsurance Company’s alleged failure to settle a third-party insurance claim ari sing out of a motor vehicle accident. The magistrate judge recommended dismiss al because plaintiff’s allegations did not show any action under color of state law, required by § 1983, or a discriminatory animus, necessary under § 1985( 3). After plaintiff submitted a brief set of inapposite objections, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the case. We are in complete agreement with the analysis appr oved by the district court. While a pro se litigant is entitled to a li beral construction of her pleadings, “[t]he broad reading of the plaintiff’s complaint d oes not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based.” Riddle v. Mondragon , 83 F.3d 1197, 1202 (10th Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted). The authorities cited by the magistrate judge conclusively establish the fatal legal deficiencies in plaintiff’s pleadings. In plain terms, the civil rights statutes invoked h ere do not provide a general remedy for wrongful conduct. They were pas sed to address specific issues of particular importance in this country fol lowing the civil war. Above all, they were meant to ensure universal respect for eve ry citizen’s federally-3-

guaranteed rights, i.e., rights created by the Unit ed States Constitution and congressional enactments. Accordingly, principles of state law, such as the contractual rights and tort duties relied on by pla intiff, do not form the basis for § 1983 or § 1985(3) suits. Further, the civil rights statutes were primarily directed at abuses of government power. Thus, § 19 83 affords no remedy even for the violation of federal rights unless the wron gdoer exercised some authority conferred by the state--typically by acting within the scope of government employment or agency. Plaintiff’s allegations, whi ch assert private corporate misconduct, do not satisfy this condition. While § 1985(3) does not require action under color of state law, it substitutes the condition that the prohibited conduct involve racial, or similar class-based, dis crimination. This element is-4-

also absent here. In short, irrespective of any me rit they may possess, plaintiff’s objections regarding her treatment by State Farm ar e simply beyond the limited reach of the federal statutory remedies she has inv oked. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of Utah is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s motions to supplement the re cord are denied. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge