Charles Bausley appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming defendant jail personnel violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by searching his cell and seizing some of his possessions. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that dismissal was proper for the reasons the district court stated. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525-36, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (Fourth Amendment has no applicability to prison cells; no due process violation in unauthorized deprivation of prisoner’s property if adequate state postdeprivation remedy exists); McQuillan v. Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp., 331 Ark. 242, 961 S.W.2d 729, 732 (1998) (state-law action for conversion is remedy for wrongful possession or disposition of another’s property). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.