NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 10-4667
_____________
JOY L. CRAMER; WILMER H. SCOTT,
Appellants
v.
DONNA PRUEY; ALLEN E. PRUEY; SHERRY BELL (PRUEY) SOCCIO; DONALD
E. RUSSLER, JR.; CONNIE C. RUSSLER; TROOPER JESSE L. DUMM, individually;
TROOPER STEVEN C. PETERSON, individually; TROOPER KEVIN REESE,
individually; ROBERT M. BECK, Huntingdon Valley Dog Warden, individually,
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Civ. No. 10-796)
District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell
_____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a),
July 14, 2011
BEFORE: SLOVITER, FUENTES, and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: July 20, 2011 )
_____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_____________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge.
1
Appellants Joy L. Cramer and Wilmer H. Scott brought this action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their constitutional rights to equal protection and
due process. On appeal, they contend that the District Court improperly dismissed their
claims against the Russler and Pruey families because although not state actors, they were
“involved with the Commonwealth Appellees State Troopers who on all occasions
violated the Appellants’ Civil Rights.” (Appellants’ Br. 14). While we take this
language to refer to an alleged civil conspiracy among the private parties and the
Commonwealth defendants, see Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild
LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 175-76 (3d Cir. 2010), to the extent the District Court correctly
dismissed all of the § 1983 claims against the Commonwealth defendants, any § 1983
conspiracy claim involving the private actors must also fail.
Accordingly, having reviewed the District Court’s orders of October 22 and
November 15, 2010, dismissing all of Appellants’ causes of action for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we hereby affirm substantially for the reasons stated by
the District Court.
2