Rivearia Larod, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Julie Conrad, Defendant-appellee, 81 F.3d 172 (10th Cir. 1996)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT¹ 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff-Appellant Rivearia Larod, an inmate at the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility in Crowley, Colorado, filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C.1983, alleging that Defendant-Appellee Julie Conrad violated his civil rights under color of state law.²  The complaint makes vague allegations that Ms. Conrad failed to comply with state contract laws governing depositors and financial institutions, and that she "acted in the capacity of a police officer." Complaint at 3. The district court, construing the pro se complaint liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), concluded that the allegations concerned an incident which occurred when Mr. Larod attempted to purchase something from Ms. Conrad, a retail clerk, who then reported to authorities that Mr. Larod had passed a bad check. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Mr. Larod failed to allege any facts showing that Ms. Conrad acted under color of state law. We agree with the district court that the complaint is vague and conclusory and must be dismissed as legally frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.1915(d); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Accordingly, for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court's July 19, 1995 Order of Dismissal, we AFFIRM. The mandate shall issue forthwith.