Case Name: Raymond E. OSLOOND, Sr.; Mary Ellen Osloond, Appellants, v. Richard MOWELL; Brian Wurtele; Pat Humphrey; Warren G. Johnson; Rod Oswald; John H. Fitzgerald, III; Christopher W. Madsen, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-01-09
Citations: 1 F. App'x 571
Docket Number: No. 00-2691
Parties: Raymond E. OSLOOND, Sr.; Mary Ellen Osloond, Appellants, v. Richard MOWELL; Brian Wurtele; Pat Humphrey; Warren G. Johnson; Rod Oswald; John H. Fitzgerald, III; Christopher W. Madsen, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 1
Pages: 571–572

Head Matter:
Raymond E. OSLOOND, Sr.; Mary Ellen Osloond, Appellants, v. Richard MOWELL; Brian Wurtele; Pat Humphrey; Warren G. Johnson; Rod Oswald; John H. Fitzgerald, III; Christopher W. Madsen, Appellees.
No. 00-2691.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 5, 2001.
Decided Jan. 9, 2001.
Before BEAM, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Raymond and Mary Osloond appeal from the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The Osloonds claimed defendants conspired to deprive them of their property without due process and in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, by seizing certain vehicles from a storage unit pursuant to a state court writ of execution, and later selling them at a sheriffs auction. Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court that the Os-loonds have failed to show defendants violated any federal statutory or constitutional right. See Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 535-36 (8th Cir.1999) (standard of review; alleged facts or evidence must suggest violation of rights under Constitution or United States statutes as prerequisite to § 1983 liability). Because the seizure occurred under a valid writ of execution, and a post-deprivation remedy was available, there was no violation of the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments. See id. at 536-37 (seizure was not unreasonable where sheriff erroneously seized third party's boat located on property levied under valid writ of execution; post-deprivation hearing satisfied due process); S.D. Codified Laws § 15-18-31 (1984) (third party may claim ownership of levied property in trial by special jury).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The HONORABLE KAREN E. SCHREIER, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.