NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 _______________

                                      No. 24-1902
                                    _______________

      JOSEPH LOKUTA, III, individually and d/b/a Lokuta’s Garage Corporation,
                                                                 Appellant

                                             v.

      LENA ANGELELLA, Chief of Police, Pittston Township Police Department;
     DAVID SLEZAK, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Pittston Township;
   JOSEPH HAWK, Vice Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Pittston Township;
    STEPHEN RINALDI, Member of the Board of Supervisors of Pittston Township;
              JOHN BONITA, Administrator of Pittston Township
                             _______________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                                (D.C. No. 3:23-cv-01617)
                     District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion
                                    _______________

                      Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                                on December 13, 2024

                  Before: BIBAS, CHUNG, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

                               (Filed: December 20, 2024)
                                    _______________

                                       OPINION*
                                    _______________




* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding
precedent.
BIBAS, Circuit Judge.

   Joseph Lokuta’s company tows, impounds, and stores cars in Pittston Township, Penn-

sylvania. Since 2019, Pittston has not called Lokuta’s Garage for those needs. So Lokuta

sued Pittston’s officials under 

 for violating his procedural- and substantive-

due-process rights and the Commerce Clause. The District Court dismissed for failure to

state a claim. Lokuta appeals only the dismissal of the two due-process claims. We review

de novo. Vorchheimer v. Phila. Owners Ass’n, 

 (3d Cir. 2018).

   Lokuta does not allege that Pittston infringed a protected property or liberty interest.

He shows no violated property interest because he identifies no statute, regulation, or con-

tract that gives him a protected right to have Pittston choose his services. Piecknick v.

Pennsylvania, 

, 1255–59 (3d Cir. 1994). Lokuta stresses that Pennsylvania

licensed and approved his garage to inspect cars. Though those licensures may be property

interests, Pittston has not taken them. Rather, it has simply declined to use his services.

And he does not identify a protected liberty interest because the loss of a single customer

does not “deprive [him] of the right to pursue [his] chosen occupation.” 

. So he

has not identified either a pertinent procedural- or substantive-due-process right.

   Alternatively, Lokuta says he should at least get to amend his complaint. The District

Court denied leave to amend as futile. In a supplemental-briefing notice, we asked him to

explain what else he would plead if given the chance to amend. He did not respond. Because

letting him amend would be futile, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing this

case.




                                              2