property pursuant to state statute acted “under color of state law” for purposes of § 1983. Id. at 924-25, 942, 102 S.Ct. 2744. The statute authorized a court clerk to issue a writ of attachment based solely on a creditor’s ex parte petition. Id. at 924-25, 102 S.Ct. 2744. No judge reviewed the petition before the clerk issued the writ. Id. The Court limited its holding, noting that “we do not hold today that a private party’s mere invocation of state legal procedures constitutes joint participation or conspiracy with state officials satisfying the § 1983 requirement of action under color of law.” Id. at 939 n. 21, 102 S.Ct. 2744 (quotations and citatio state authority, they never exercised state power over Carlson or conspired with state officials. See Youngblood, 266 F.3d at 855 (<HOLDING>); Miller v. Compton, 122 F.3d 1094, 1098 (8th
holding that such a physician was a state actor under  1983 holding that a store is not a state actor when pursuant to state statute it detains a suspected shoplifter in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable period of time holding that amtrak was a state actor holding that a school was not a state actor even though it had to comply with many state regulations to be eligible for state funding and almost all of its students had been referred to it by the state holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor