No. 09-5090.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: July 20, 2009.
BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Tatel and Brown, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary reversal, styled as a motion for summary judgment to remand for trial, and the supplement thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that the district court’s order issued March 5, 2009, be summarily affirmed. The merits of the parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. SeeTaxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
because appellant did not identify any specific constitutional right he believes prison officials violated in failing to send his personal property to his new location after his transfer. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981) (stating that one essential element of a § 1983 claim is conduct that “deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”). On appeal, appellant argues the seizure of his personal property violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, but the court will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v.Stover, 329 F.3d 859, 872 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
Page 2
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc.See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Page 1