Harold B. Shamburger v. Eduardo G. Roy Tomar Mason T. Rosario R. Edwards Plumely, Correctional Officer

50 F.3d 16 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Harold B. SHAMBURGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eduardo G. ROY; Tomar Mason; T. Rosario; R. Edwards; Plumely, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-15791. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 13, 1994. * Decided March 23, 1995. Before: CHOY, SKOPIL, and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Harold Shamburger, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of prison officials on his civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 . Shamburger also appeals the court's denial of his motion for further discovery. We affirm. A. 3 An intentional deprivation of an inmate's property by state officials does not violate the due process clause if the state provides an adequate postdeprivation remedy, and the deprivation did not result from application of an established state procedure. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 531-33 (1984). 4…