Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit 

No. 20-1473

WILLIAM C. McLAUGHLIN; DEBORAH McLAUGHLIN,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

TIVERTON TOWN COUNCIL; TOWN OF TIVERTON; DENISE DEMEDEIROS, 

in her individual capacity and her official capacity as an agent 

or employee of the Town of Tiverton; JAY LAMBERT, in his 

individual capacity and his official capacity as an agent or 

employee of the Town of Tiverton; PETER MELLO, in his individual 

capacity and his official capacity as an agent or employee of 

the Town of Tiverton; BRETT N. PELLETIER, in his individual 

capacity and his official capacity as an agent or employee of 

the Town of Tiverton; JOAN B. CHABOT, in her individual capacity 

and her official capacity as an agent or employee of the Town of 

Tiverton; DAVID PERRY, in his individual capacity and his 

official capacity as an agent or employee of the Town of 

Tiverton; JOSEPH SOUSA, in his individual capacity and his 

official capacity as an agent or employee of the Town of 

Tiverton; MATTHEW WOJCIK, in his individual capacity and his 

official capacity as an agent or employee of the Town of 

Tiverton; ANDREW M. TEITZ, in his individual capacity and his 

official capacity as an agent or employee of the Town of 

Tiverton; GINA A. DICENSO, in her individual capacity and her 

official capacity as an agent or employee of the Town of 

Tiverton; NEIL HALL, in his individual capacity and his official 

capacity as an agent or employee of the Town of Tiverton; GARETH 

EAMES, in his individual capacity and his official capacity as 

an agent or employee of the Town of Tiverton; MANCINI 

DEMOLITION, INC.,

Defendants, Appellees,

RELIABLE PEST CONTROL, INC.,

Defendant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. John J. McConnell, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

Before

Lynch, Selya, and Kayatta,

Circuit Judges.

Daniel Calabro, Jr. and Law Office of Daniel Calabro, Jr. on 

brief for appellants.

Mark DeSisto, Rebecca J. Partington, Kathleen A. Hilton, 

Patrick K. Burns, and DeSisto Law LLC on brief for Town appellees. 

John P. Larochelle and Larochelle Law on brief for appellee 

Mancini Demolition, Inc.

February 8, 2021
- 3 -

Per Curiam. After careful review of the briefs and the 

record, we affirm the judgment in favor of the defendants on the 

claim seeking recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on due process 

rights under federal and state law (Count 1) essentially for the 

reasons set forth in the opinion of the district court. We add 

only that it is plain that both plaintiffs had repeated notice in 

fact of the Town's intention to demolish the improperly sited 

structure, and that a failure to follow proper state law procedures 

does not itself necessarily violate the federal Constitution. See

Senra v. Town of Smithfield, 715 F.3d 34, 40 (1st Cir. 2013)

("[T]he federal Due Process Clause does not incorporate the 

particular procedural structures enacted by state or local 

governments." (quoting Chmielinski v. Massachusetts, 513 F.3d 309, 

316 n.5 (1st Cir. 2008)); cf. Chiplin Enters., Inc. v. City of 

Lebanon, 712 F.2d 1524, 1527 (1st Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is axiomatic 

that not every violation of a state statute amounts to an 

infringement of constitutional rights."). We also dismiss for 

lack of appellate jurisdiction plaintiffs' challenge to the 

district court order denying summary judgment in their favor. 

Morse v. Cloutier, 869 F.3d 16, 31 (1st Cir. 2017) ("It is settled 

beyond peradventure that we lack jurisdiction to hear appeals from 

the routine denial of summary judgment motions on the merits.").
- 4 -

We also affirm the judgment in favor of defendants on 

the counts for negligent supervision, negligent training, and 

estoppel on the grounds that plaintiffs have waived any challenge 

to the dismissal of those claims by not developing such challenges 

in their brief on appeal. See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 

1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).

Finally, we vacate the judgment of dismissal with 

prejudice as to the remaining state law claims (conversion, 

trespass, and abuse of process) and direct that said counts be 

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 on remand. 

See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988); 

Borrás-Borrero v. Corporación del Fondo del Seguro del Estado, 958 

F.3d 26, 37 (1st Cir. 2020).

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. See

1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).

Costs are awarded in favor of Defendants.