Not for publication in West's Federal Reporter Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3 

# United Stat es Court of Appeals

For the First C ircuit

No. 03-1523 EDWIN COLON, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. SPECIAL AGENT JAMES CONNOLLY, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________ JOHN RUSSELL, ET AL., Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge ]

Before Boudin, Chief Judge , Torruella and Howard, Circuit Judges . Edwin Colon on brief pro se. Michael J. Sullivan , UnitedStates Attorney, and Jennifer Hay Zacks , Assistant United States Attorney, on br ief for appellee James Connolly. Brian Rogal, Esq. and Law Offices of Timothy M. Burke on brief for appellees Thomas R. Zona, Francis E. Moore and Charles Murray. October 27, 2003-2- Per Curiam . Pro se plaintiff-appellant Edwin Colon ("Colon") appeals from two district court orders granting summary judgment in favor of federal and state officials in his civil rights damages suit. We review summary judgment decisions de novo , examining the record independently and drawing any factual inferences in the light most favo rab le to the non-moving party. Rosenberg v. City of Everett , 328 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir. 2003). We have reviewed the parties' submissions a nd the record on appeal. We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's 10/30/01 and 1/31/03 reports and recommendations, which the district court acceptedon 11/27/01 and3/19/03, respectively. We add only the following comments.

Colon's argument that the district court improperly reliedon the magistrate's reports because two of themcontradicted each other has no merit. Specifically, Colon asserts that the magistrate's 8/9/99 report concluded that Colon's complaint was not vague, whereas the magistrate's 10/30/01 report concluded that his comp laint was vague. A review of these reports reveals that the purportedcontradiction ha s be en manufactured, for in his 8/9/99 report, the magistrate merely noted Colon's contention that prior court rulings suggested that his complaint was not vague.

Colon's next argument that the district court abused its discretion and violated his due process rights by adopting the magistrate's reports without issuing its own opinions also has no-3-

merit. While the district court was required to review the magistrate judge's decisions de novo , see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this did not - contrary to Colon's contention - compel the district court to make separate findings of fact or issue opinions setting forth its own reasoning, see Jonco, LLC v. Ali, Inc. , 157 F.3d 33, 35 (1st Cir. 1998).

Finally, Colon's argument that he stated viable damages claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), has no merit. The lower court correctly held that Colon's damages claims were not cognizable under Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994) because the present suit would necessarily imply t he i nvalidity of Colon's underlying sentence. We add that Colon may pursue his damages claims if his conviction and sentence are ever invalidated. Guzman-Rivera v. Rivera-Cruz , 29 F.3d 3, 6 (1st Cir. 1994).

The judgment of the district court is summarily affirmed . See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).