Unpublished Dispositionedward J. Harbison, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Lamar Alexander, et al., Defendants-appellees, 825 F.2d 410 (6th Cir. 1987)

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not necessary. Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

This pro se Tennessee prisoner appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in which he alleged an intentional deprivation of his personal property. He requested monetary damages and such other relief as the court deemed just.

Upon review, we conclude that the district court's dismissal of the complaint was correct. The plaintiff has an adequate post-deprivation remedy pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-30-101. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 543-44 (1981). Therefore, the plaintiff failed to state a claim.

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is hereby affirmed pursuant to Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.