Small v. Warren, 030414 FED3, 13-4350

Docket Nº:13-4350
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:ROBERT L. SMALL, Appellant v. CHARLES WARREN; SUSAN LAWRENCE; SGT. SALMON; J. GUNTER; RONALD CATTELL
Judge Panel:Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
Case Date:March 04, 2014
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

ROBERT L. SMALL, Appellant

v.

CHARLES WARREN; SUSAN LAWRENCE; SGT. SALMON; J. GUNTER; RONALD CATTELL

No. 13-4350

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

March 4, 2014

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted for Possible Dismissal for Jurisdictional Defect and Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 February 12, 2014

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 3:12-cv-07733) District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

OPINION

PER CURIAM

Robert Small, an inmate in a New Jersey prison, sued several prison officials relating to a dispute about his purchase of a television from the commissary. In short, 1Small claimed that prison officials wrongly disallowed a return of a flat-screen television that he purchased from the commissary. He explained that he bought a new one only because he was told that his other television had to be sent home and sought to return the new one as soon as he learned that the old one had not been sent and before the new one was engraved with his name and number. He alleged that the defendants breached a duty of care and violated his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed it for failure to state a claim. At that time, the District Court also denied Small's motions for default judgment as moot.

Small appeals. We have jurisdiction over his appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.2 Our review is plenary. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). Upon review, we will summarily affirm because no substantial issue is presented on appeal. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

As the District Court explained, Small essentially asserts a claim for the deprivation of property without due process. He has a property interest in the funds he spent on the television, so he is entitled to due process with respect to the deprivation of those funds. See Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166, 179 (3d Cir. 1997). However, to the extent he alleged that he was deprived of his property by a mere lack of due care, he does not allege a deprivation within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986).

Otherwise, under these circumstances, the requirements of due process are...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP