United States Court of Appeals
                    For the Eighth Circuit
                ___________________________

                        No. 16-1176
                ___________________________

                           Cletis Goodman

                lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

                                    v.

                           Sanfford Pollack

                     lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

                      Jennifer Stehlik Ladman

               lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

Brody Duncan; State of Nebraska, Seward County Nebraska & Sheriff
        Department; Thomas R. Johnson; State of Nebraska

                     lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants

     Seward County, Nebraska; Seward County Sheriff's Office

              lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
                               ____________

             Appeal from United States District Court
               for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
                          ____________

                    Submitted: August 24, 2016
                      Filed: August 29, 2016
                          [Unpublished]
                          ____________
Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                        ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Cletis Goodman appeals from the order of the District Court1 dismissing his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action that alleged due process violations related to the seizure of his
personal property during a criminal investigation. After careful review, we conclude
that Goodman could not proceed on a due-process claim because Nebraska law
provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 

,
533 (1984) (holding “that an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a
state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the
Due Process Clause . . . if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is
available”); State v. Agee, 

, 168 (Neb. 2007) (noting in an appeal
from an order overruling a motion for the return of property seized in a criminal case
“that the government’s disposition . . . of property does not moot a motion for return
of the property”); see also Adams v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 

, 1154
(8th Cir. 2016) (“We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss.”);
Spirtas Co. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 

, 670–71 (8th Cir. 2013) (“This court
can affirm on any basis supported in the record.”).

      We affirm the judgment of the District Court and deny the pending motion for
sanctions.
                      ______________________________




      1
       The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.

                                         -2-