CLD-103 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-4003
___________
OTIS MICHAEL BRIDGEFORTH,
Appellant
v.
TD BANK;
KEN WILSON, District Supervisor, TD BANK;
CHRISTIANA SCHIAPPA, Teller Service Manager, TD Bank
____________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civil No. 10-cv-00499)
District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 28, 2011
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 15, 2011)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM
Otis Michael Bridgeforth filed a complaint pro se and in forma pauperis under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, listing “race/color/sex” discrimination as his cause of action. In the body
of his complaint, he alleged that on June 8, 2010, bank employees closed his recently
opened student checking account. Attached to the complaint is a June 2, 2010 letter from
the bank informing Bridgeforth that his account would be closed if the bank did not
receive a signed signature form and opening deposit by June 14, 2010. Bridgeforth stated
that, on June 4, 2010, he submitted a deposit (reflected on an attached bank statement)
and the “important information documented on the new account form” (apparently
including his signature, which appears on the attached document). For the “breached
agreement” and “intentional infliction of emotional distress” that Bridgeforth purported to
have suffered, he requested thirty million dollars in damages.
The District Court dismissed Bridgeforth’s complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and held that amendment would be futile. Bridgeforth appeals.
We have jurisdiction over Bridgeforth’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
exercise plenary review over the dismissal of his claims. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229
F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We review the denial of leave to amend for abuse of
discretion. See Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217, 223 (3d Cir. 2004).
On review, we will dismiss Bridgeforth’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because it does not have an arguable basis in fact or law. See Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). As the District Court concluded, Bridgeforth could
not sue the defendants under § 1983 because they are not state actors. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Furthermore, Bridgeforth stated no plausible federal
2
claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). Because
Bridgeforth presented no actionable federal claim, the District Court did not err in
declining to consider any state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); De Asencio v.
Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301, 311 (3d Cir. 2003).
In short, the District Court did not err in dismissing Bridgeforth’s complaint as
frivolous. The District Court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Bridgeforth
leave to amend on the basis of futility. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d
103, 112-13 (3d Cir. 2002). We will dismiss this appeal.
3