Case Name: Cletis GOODMAN Plaintiff-Appellant v. Sanfford POLLACK Defendant. Jennifer Stehlik Ladman Defendant-Appellee. Brody Duncan; State of Nebraska, Seward County Nebraska & Sheriff Department; Thomas R. Johnson; State of Nebraska Defendants. Seward County, Nebraska; Seward County Sheriff's Office Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-29
Citations: 668 F. App'x 670
Docket Number: No. 16-1176
Parties: Cletis GOODMAN Plaintiff-Appellant v. Sanfford POLLACK Defendant Jennifer Stehlik Ladman Defendant-Appellee Brody Duncan; State of Nebraska, Seward County Nebraska & Sheriff Department; Thomas R. Johnson; State of Nebraska Defendants Seward County, Nebraska; Seward County Sheriff’s Office Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 670–671

Head Matter:
Cletis GOODMAN Plaintiff-Appellant v. Sanfford POLLACK Defendant Jennifer Stehlik Ladman Defendant-Appellee Brody Duncan; State of Nebraska, Seward County Nebraska & Sheriff Department; Thomas R. Johnson; State of Nebraska Defendants Seward County, Nebraska; Seward County Sheriff’s Office Defendants-Appellees
No. 16-1176
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: August 24, 2016
Filed: August 29, 2016
Cletis Goodman, Pro Se
Brandy Rae Johnson, Vincent Valentino, Valentino Law Office, Lincoln, NE, for Defendants-Appellees Jennifer Stehlik Ladman, Seward County
Vincent Valentino, Valentino Law Office, Lincoln, NE, for Defendant-Appellee Seward County Sheriffs Office
Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Cletis Goodman appeals from the order of the District Court dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action that alleged due process violations related to the seizure of his personal property during a criminal investigation. After careful review, we conclude that Goodman could not proceed on a due-process claim because Nebraska law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (holding "that an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause . if a meaningful postdepri-vation remedy for the loss is available"); State v. Agee, 274 Neb. 445, 741 N.W.2d 161, 168 (2007) (noting in an appeal from an order overruling a motion for the return of property seized in a criminal case "that the government's disposition . of property does not moot a motion for return of the property"); see also Adams v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 813 F.3d 1151, 1154 (8th Cir. 2016) ("We review de novo a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss."); Spirtas Co. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 715 F.3d 667, 670-71 (8th Cir. 2013) ("This court can affirm on any basis supported in the record.").
We affirm the judgment of the District Court and deny the pending motion for sanctions.
. The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.