Jimmy Lee Butler v. Smith ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    _____________
    No. 00-1331EA
    _____________
    Jimmy Lee Butler,                       *
    *
    Appellant,                *
    * On Appeal from the United
    v.                               * States District Court
    * for the Eastern District
    Smith, Captain, Pulaski County Jail;    * of Arkansas.
    Cummings, Miss, Pulaski County Jail; *
    Ann Ardria, Miss, Finance Office,       * [Not To Be Published]
    Pulaski County Jail; Randy Johnson,     *
    Sheriff, Pulaski County Jail,           *
    *
    Appellees.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: March 2, 2000
    Filed: March 13, 2000
    ___________
    Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Federal inmate Jimmy Lee Butler appeals from the District Court&s1 28 U.S.C.
    § 1915A order dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against three
    Pulaski County, Arkansas jail officials and an employee in the jail’s financing office,
    complaining that he was wrongly charged for meals while he was housed at the jail.
    Having carefully reviewed the record, see Cooper v. Schriro, 
    189 F.3d 781
    , 783 (8th
    Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we conclude dismissal was proper because Butler has an
    adequate post-deprivation remedy in state court. See Hudson v. Palmer, 
    468 U.S. 517
    ,
    530-37 (1984) (when state actor deprives individual of personal property, individual
    does not have § 1983 claim if state law provides adequate post-deprivation remedy);
    Ark. R. Crim. P. 15.2 & 15.5 (1999) (providing that motion for return of seized items
    can be filed or other civil remedies can be pursued); McQuillan v. Mercedes-Benz
    Credit Corp., 
    961 S.W.2d 729
    , 732 (Ark. 1998) (“Conversion is a common-law tort
    action for the wrongful possession or disposition of another’s property.”).
    As to Butler's complaint that the Magistrate Judge lacked authority to “decide”
    this case, we note that the Magistrate Judge and the District Court Judge followed the
    procedures outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) in handling the case.
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    1
    The Honorable Henry Woods, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry
    W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
    -2-