Case Name: Vincente ORTIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GILES W. DALBY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; S.A. Holencik; Warden L.J. Rasbeary; Associate Warden H. Bryan, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-29
Citations: 396 F. App'x 144
Docket Number: No. 10-10296
Parties: Vincente ORTIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GILES W. DALBY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; S.A. Holencik; Warden L.J. Rasbeary; Associate Warden H. Bryan, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 396
Pages: 144–144

Head Matter:
Vincente ORTIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GILES W. DALBY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; S.A. Holencik; Warden L.J. Rasbeary; Associate Warden H. Bryan, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-10296
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 29, 2010.
Vincente Ortiz, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Vincente Ortiz, formerly federal prisoner # 64845-208, appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), in which he alleged that prison officials negligently or maliciously lost his personal property and caused him psychological impairment and an inability to trust authority. The district court, concluding that Ortiz had failed to show a due process violation, dismissed the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Because the district court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 1915A, and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, we review the dismissal de novo. Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir.2005).
The negligent deprivation of property by a government official does not amount to a due process violation. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 332-33, 106 S.Ct. 662, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986). Moreover, Ortiz has failed to state a claim that correctional officers intentionally deprived him of his property. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.