THOMAS v. BAKER et al

Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
OLIVER THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-364-MCR-MJF
SERGEANT BAKER and
SERGEANT MALTOS,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Because the facts presented in this complaint fail to state
a facially plausible federal claim for relief against the named Defendants,
the District Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims for failure to
state 	a 	claim, 	decline 	to 	exercise 	supplemental 	jurisdiction 	over
Plaintiff’s state law claim, and dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claim without
prejudice.
B ACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action
against two employees of the Florida Department of Corrections. Doc. 1.
Case 5:25-cv-00364-MCR-MJF Document 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 8

Page 2 of 8
Plaintiff asserts that in July 2025, these officers failed to follow the
correct 	procedures 	when 	impounding 	and 	inventorying 	Plaintiff’s
property. Id. at 6–10. Plaintiff alleges that several items of his personal
property are missing. Id. at 8.
Although the complaint form instructed Plaintiff to “[s]tate what
rights under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States have
been violated,” Plaintiff did not identify what provision of the United
States Constitution Defendants purportedly violated. Id. at 11. Instead,
Plaintiff identifies various Florida regulations and asserts that prison
officials failed to respond properly to Plaintiff’s grievances. Id. at 12–14.
For relief, Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the missing property, which
totals $323.35. Id. at 8, 11, 15.
STANDARD
The 	District 	Court 	is required to 	review Plaintiff’s 	complaint,
identify cognizable claims and dismiss the complaint, or any portion
thereof, if the complaint “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)–(b).
Determining whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be
Case 5:25-cv-00364-MCR-MJF Document 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 8

Page 3 of 8
granted is governed by the standard set forth in Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Mitchell v.
Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1485 (11th Cir. 1997). To survive dismissal, “a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007)).
D ISCUSSION
To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1)
a person, acting under the color of state law, (2) deprived him of a right
protected under the Constitution or law of the United States. Little v.
City of North Miami, 805 F.2d 962, 965 (11th Cir. 1986).
Here, Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendants violated a right
protected under the Constitution or law of the United States.
A. 	Plaintiff Fails to State a Due Process Claim with Respect to
the Grievance Procedure
In his “statement of claims,” Plaintiff alleges that at each level of
the grievance procedure, prison staff “failed to 	properly investigate
Plaintiffs missing property claim.” Doc. 1 at 14. To the extent Plaintiff
asserts 	that 	Defendants 	failed 	to 	properly 	investigate 	Plaintiff’s
Case 5:25-cv-00364-MCR-MJF Document 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 8

Page 4 of 8
grievances, he has failed to state a plausible claim because Plaintiff does
not have a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest in the
grievance procedure.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects
against deprivations of liberty and property “without due process of law.”
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. To state a claim for a denial of due process,
a prisoner must allege: (1) a deprivation of a constitutionally-protected
property or liberty interest; (2) state action; and (3) constitutionally-
inadequate process. Cryder v. Oxendine, 24 F.3d 175, 177 (11th Cir.
1994); see Catron v. City of St. Petersburg, 658 F.3d 1260, 1266 (11th Cir.
2011); Grayden v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2003).
A failure to investigate or respond to Plaintiff’s grievances does not
give rise to a constitutional violation. See Wildberger v. Bracknell, 869
F.2d 1467, 1467–68 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that a violation of the
grievance procedure did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation,
because there is no constitutional right to a grievance procedure); see also
Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he existence of
a prison grievance procedure confers no liberty interest on a prisoner . . . .
A state created prison grievance procedure is simply a procedural right
Case 5:25-cv-00364-MCR-MJF Document 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 8

Page 5 of 8
and does not confer any substantive right upon an inmate.”); Thomas v.
Warner, 237 F. App’x 435, 437–38 (11th Cir. 2007) (“A prisoner does not
have a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in an inmate grievance
procedure.”); 	Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994) (“[T]he
Constitution creates no entitlement to grievance procedures or access to
any 	such 	procedure 	voluntarily 	established 	by 	a 	state.”). 	Plaintiff,
therefore, cannot state a plausible claim for the handling—or alleged
mishandling—of his grievances, and the District Court should dismiss
this claim.
B. 	Failure to State a Due Process Claim with Respect to the
Loss of Property
To the extent Plaintiff asserts a due process claim arising from the
loss of his property, he fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted 	because 	the 	State 	of 	Florida 	provides 	an 	adequate 	post-
deprivation remedy.
As noted above, the third essential element of a due process claim
is constitutionally-inadequate process. See Cryder, 24 F.3d at 177. When
a state official engages in a “random, unauthorized” act, the State is in
no position to 	provide 	pre-deprivation 	process, and post-deprivation
process is all that is due. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 513, 533 (1984);
Case 5:25-cv-00364-MCR-MJF Document 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 5 of 8

Page 6 of 8
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 543–44 (1984). Florida law provides for
an adequate post-deprivation remedy for theft of inmate property by
prison guards insofar as an inmate may file a tort action in state court to
recover damages for destruction of property. See Fla. Stat. § 768.28(1)
(waiving sovereign immunity for tort actions brought against the State
or its agencies for, among other things, “loss of property” caused by the
“wrongful act or omission of any employee of the agency or subdivision
while acting within the scope of the employee’s office or employment”). A
“civil cause of action for wrongful conversion of personal property’ under
state law is a sufficient postdeprivation remedy when it extends to
unauthorized seizures of personal property by state officers.” Case v.
Eslinger, 555 F.3d 1317, 1331 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Lindsey v. Storey,
936 F.2d 554, 561 (11th Cir. 1991)).
The existence of 	a 	private 	cause 	of 	action 	under 	Florida 	law
provides 	Plaintiff 	with 	a 	meaningful 	post-deprivation 	remedy 	to
challenge the loss of property caused by a state actor. Case, 555 F.3d at
1331; see Loor v. Bailey, 708 F. App’x 992, 994–95 (11th Cir. 2017)
(affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff-prisoner’s due process claim for
failure to state a claim because he “had a post-deprivation remedy to
Case 5:25-cv-00364-MCR-MJF Document 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 6 of 8

Page 7 of 8
challenge the loss of property under Florida law”). Therefore, Plaintiff
has 	failed 	to 	state 	a 	claim 	under 	the 	Fourteenth 	Amendment 	for
Defendants’ theft, destruction, or loss of Plaintiff’s property. See Smith v.
Israel, 619 F. App’x 839, 842 (11th Cir. 2015); Jackson v. Hill, 569 F.
App’x. 697, 698 (11th Cir. 2014).
C. 	State Law Claim
To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert a conversion claim
under Florida law against Defendants, the District Court should decline
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the claims without
prejudice and thereby afford Plaintiff the opportunity to pursue this
claim in an appropriate state court.1 Lobo v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 704
F.3d 882, 891 n.13 (11th Cir. 2013) (encouraging “district courts to
dismiss any remaining state claims when, as here, the federal claims
have been dismissed prior to trial.”) (quoting Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004)).
1 The District Court lacks an independent basis to exercise jurisdiction
over Plaintiff’s state law claim. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the
property that is missing, which is only $323.35. This is substantially less
than the jurisdictional threshold required for the District Court to
exercise its diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim.
Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1 2 9 2 , 1299 (11th Cir. 2001).
Case 5:25-cv-00364-MCR-MJF Document 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 7 of 8

Page 8 of 8
C ONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff fails to state a plausible § 1983 claim for relief,
the undersigned respectfully recommends that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS with prejudice 	Plaintiff’s section 1983 claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1);
2. 	DECLINE 	to 	exercise 	supplemental 	jurisdiction 	over
Plaintiff’s state law claim and DISMISS without prejudice
those claims; and
3. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 5th day of February 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to make recommendations regarding dispositive
matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b); 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72(b). 	Objections 	to 	these
proposed findings and recommendations must be filed
within fourteen days of the date of the report and
recommendation. A party who fails to object to the
magistrate 	judge’s 	findings 	or 	recommendations
contained in this R&R waives the right to challenge on
appeal the District Court’s order based on unobjected-
to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 5:25-cv-00364-MCR-MJF Document 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 8 of 8