George Lee Coleman v. State Farm Fire & ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 98-3116
    ___________
    George Lee Coleman,                   *
    *
    Appellant,                *
    *
    v.                             * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    State Farm Fire & Casualty Company;   * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Robert Hamilton, Local                *
    Representative; Mike Burton, Local    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Representative; Anna Local            *
    Representative; Joel Hicks,           *
    Mechanical Engineer,                  *
    *
    Appellees.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: January 6, 1999
    Filed: January 19, 1999
    ___________
    Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    George Lee Coleman filed the instant action under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     and state
    law, claiming that his fire insurance company and its employees violated his Fourth
    Amendment rights and destroyed evidence, stole property, and trespassed when they
    examined his home after a fire. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of
    Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The district court1 granted their motion, and
    Coleman appeals.
    As the district court held, the Fourth Amendment does not protect against
    unlawful search and seizure by private persons without government involvement. See
    United States v. Livesay, 
    983 F.2d 135
    , 136 (8th Cir. 1993). We thus agree with the
    court that Coleman failed to state a section 1983 claim. See West v. Atkins, 
    487 U.S. 42
    , 48 (1988) (to state claim under § 1983, plaintiff must allege violation of
    constitutional right and must show deprivation was committed by person acting under
    color of state law). Additionally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
    discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Coleman’s state law
    claims, see 
    28 U.S.C. § 1367
    (c)(3), although the dismissal of these claims should be
    without prejudice, see Franklin v. Zain, 
    152 F.3d 783
    , 786 (8th Cir. 1998).
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment but modify the dismissal of the pendent
    state claims to be without prejudice.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    1
    The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 98-3116

Filed Date: 1/19/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021