Unpublished Dispositionphilip W. Berryman, Plaintiff-appellant, v. John Jabe, Dennis Straub, C. Daniels, J. Hofbauer, W.jackson, J.a. Ugstman, A.r.u.m. Dalton, D. Fether, Wimple,lieutenant, A. Wittman, B. Goll, J. Worley, Redman, Officer,m. Evans, Settles, Officer, Robbins, Officer, Defendants-appellees, 909 F.2d 1482 (6th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 909 F.2d 1482 (6th Cir. 1990) Aug. 2, 1990

Before KRUPANSKY and BOGGS, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.


ORDER

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 the brief, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

Philip Berryman, a Michigan inmate, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several officials and employees of the State Prison of Southern Michigan. Berryman sought compensation for the loss of unspecified personal property. The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and this appeal followed. Berryman has submitted a brief on his own behalf.

Upon consideration we agree with the district court's disposition of this case. The absence of any factual allegations suggesting that the defendants intentionally caused the property deprivation is fatal to the action. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 329-36 (1986). The complaint, lacking an arguable basis in fact or law, is frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989).

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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.