v. Chief Postal Inspector, 973 F.2d 682, 683 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam). Moreover, Jaegly has identified no similarly situated individual who was treated differently by police, and thus has adduced no evidence of unequal treatment to sustain an equal protection claim. Finally, to the extent that Jaegly claims that his request pursuant to New York’s Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) was improperly denied, he did not appeal the denial of access to any records via an Article 78 proceeding, and thus has failed to state a violation of his constitutional rights. See N.Y. Pub. Off. § 89(4)(b) (providing that a person may appeal the denial of access to a record via an Article 78 proceeding); Hellenic Am. Neighborhood Action Comm. v. City of New York, 101 F.3d 877, 880-81 (2d Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>). To the extent that Jaegly claims that Officer
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 holding that due process is not violated when a state employee intentionally deprives an individual of property or liberty so long as the state provides a meaningful postdeprivation remedy such as an article 78 proceeding holding that postdeprivation tort remedy constitutes all the process that is due for unauthorized negligent and intentional torts by state officials holding that theft by prison guards does not violate due process when postdeprivation remedy exists holding that meaningful postdeprivation hearing is sufficient to remedy unauthorized intentional deprivations of inmates property