when his property is searched. Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 590-91, 104 S.Ct. 3227, 82 L.Ed.2d 438 (1984). In addition, random and unauthorized deprivations of property do not violate the Due Process Clause if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Although Oklahoma has not waived tort liability for claims arising out of the administration of prisons, see Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(24), a prisoner has a remedy against the state in the form of a replevin action based on contract, see Gibson v. Copeland, 13 P.3d 989, 991-92 (Okla. Ct.App.2000). Plaintiff is incorrect in arguing that a post-deprivation remedy does not cure a due process violation when the deprivation was intentional. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (<HOLDING>). The judgment is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED
holding that a prison guards intentional destruction of a prisoners possessions did not give rise to a federal due process claim because state law provided an adequate postdeprivation tort remedy holding that meaningful postdeprivation hearing is sufficient to remedy unauthorized intentional deprivations of inmates property holding postdeprivation remedy is adequate even when deprivation was intentional holding that postdeprivation tort remedy constitutes all the process that is due for unauthorized negligent and intentional torts by state officials holding that deprivation of property does not violate due process if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy is available and explaining that state tort actions are meaningful postdeprivation remedies