James HOSKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TCF NATIONAL BANK, Defendant-Appellee, 248 F. App'x 742

ORDER Wisconsin inmate James Hoskins sued TCF National Bank under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that it paid out about $3,000 on approximately 40 fraudulent checks that were drawn on his account. The district court screened Hoskins’s amended complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)(1). On appeal Hoskins continues to press his contention that the bank violated his constitutional rights. But, as the district court observed, Hoskins cannot proceed with his federal claim under § 1983 because his allegations against the bank describe purely private business activities.

The bank is not a state actor. See Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50, 119 S.Ct. 977, 143 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999); Gayman v. Principal Fin. Servs., Inc., 311 F.3d 851, 852-53 (7th Cir.2002); Mitchell v. Kirk, 20 F.3d 936, 938 (8th Cir.1994). Accordingly, the court properly dismissed Hoskins’s complaint. The district court told Hoskins that he incurred one “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(

g) for filing a complaint that fails to state a claim, and we note that he now has incurred a second “strike” for filing a frivolous appeal. Affirmed.