Opinion ID: 169696
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Remaining property

Text: According to the M artinez report, the scanner, miscellaneous bullets and m iscellaneous papers remain in the possession of Defendant M orris at the Ottaw a County, Oklahoma, District Court’s Office. As to Dopp’s U.S. passport and the thirteen photographs, D efendant M orris delivered them to Kathryn Depew, Assistant United States A ttorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma, in -13- connection with a federal forfeiture hearing in Case No. 96-CV-924, and they remain in her possession. Because the items are still in law enforcement’s possession and have not been disposed of, the district court concluded the facts did not support Dopp’s wrongful disposal claim and the State D efendants were entitled to judgment as to these items. Dopp does not appear to contest the court’s conclusion. Rather, he argues the State Defendants’ retention of these items, despite being ordered by the judge presiding over his state criminal case to return them to him, constitutes conversion and the court erred in not addressing this claim. The record reveals that in Dopp’s state court criminal case, the court ordered the State to release these items to Dopp or show cause why they should not be returned to him. In the M artinez report, the State D efendants alleged “[n]o one has made any attempt to pick up or otherwise contact the State about picking up [these items.] It would be illegal for the State to deliver [these items] to [D opp] while he is incarcerated.” (R. Vol. I, Doc. 41 at 3.) Therefore, it appears the State Defendants are willing to release the property, just not to Dopp personally due to his incarceration. In any event, while it is true Dopp alleged a state law conversion claim in his complaint, the district court declined supplemental jurisdiction over it, as well as Dopp’s other state law claims, because the federal claims had been dismissed. It did not abuse its discretion in doing so. Robey v. Shapiro, M arianos & Cejda, L.L.C., 434 F.3d 1208, 1213 -14- (10th Cir. 2006). “The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Dopp has provided no argument as to how the court abused this discretion; he merely asserts federal claims still exist. This argument is foreclosed by our affirmance of the dismissal of his federal claims.