John P. Mauro v. Jean Beil, an individual

CLD-65
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-2065
_____________
JOHN P. MAURO,
Appellant
v.
JEAN BEIL, an individual;
DENNIS KUCMYDA, an individual;
DOUG SUSAN, an individual;
R. SUSON TILLMAN-TAYLOR, an individual
__________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 05-cv-05791)
District Judge: Honorable Faith S. Hochberg
_____________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
November 30, 2006
Before: RENDELL, SMITH and COWEN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed January 10, 2007)
________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
________________
PER CURIAM
John Mauro appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint by the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. We will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28

-- 1 of 3 --

2
U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B).
I.
According to Mauro’s complaint, the defendant employees of Catholic Charities
violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Mauro alleges that the defendants made him “submit to a search of his person” and
“threatened to secure the termination of [his] employment” in an effort to demonstrate
their superiority to Mauro. Mauro also asserts that, in doing this, the defendants “acted
on a pretext that they were special prosecutors.”
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). After Mauro submitted a brief in opposition
and the defendants replied, the District Court granted the motion. Mauro now appeals the
District Court’s judgment.
II.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. When reviewing a District
Court’s order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), we must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint, and all
reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them. See Ransom v. Marrazzo, 848 F.2d
398, 401 (3d Cir. 1988). In order to establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Mauro
must show that there was (1) a violation of a federally protected constitutional or statutory
right, (2) by state action or action under color of state law. See Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild,
O’Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1264 (3d Cir. 1994). Private actors may be deemed to

-- 2 of 3 --

3
have acted under color of state law if their conduct is fairly attributable to the state. See
Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838 (1982).
Here, the defendants are not state actors, nor did they act under color of state law.
Even if true, Mauro’s allegations that the defendants pretended that they were somehow
affiliated with law enforcement for the state of New Jersey, does not suffice to make their
conduct attributable to the state. See, e.g., Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922,
937 (1982).
We agree with the District Court that Mauro can prove no set of facts in support of
his claim which would entitle him to relief. Accordingly, the appeal is without legal
merit and we will dismiss it pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B).

-- 3 of 3 --