Cletis Goodman appeals from the order of the District Court 1 dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action that alleged due process violations related to the seizure of his personal property during a criminal investigation. After careful review, we conclude that Goodman could not proceed on a due-process claim because Nebraska law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (holding “that an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause ... if a meaningful postdepri-vation remedy for the loss is available”); State v. Agee, 274 Neb. 445, 741 N.W.2d 161, 168 (2007) (noting in an appeal from an order overruling a motion for the return of property seized in a criminal case “that the government’s disposition ... of property does not moot a motion for return of the property”); see also Adams v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 813 F.3d 1151, 1154 (8th Cir. 2016) (“We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss.”); Spirtas Co. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 715 F.3d 667, 670-71 (8th Cir. 2013) (“This *671 court can affirm on any basis supported in the record.”).

We affirm the judgment of the District Court and deny the pending motion for sanctions.