Case Name: William RUPPRECHT, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CITY OF PITTSFIELD, et al., Defendants, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-31
Citations: 225 F. App'x 1
Docket Number: No. 06-2767
Parties: William RUPPRECHT, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CITY OF PITTSFIELD, et al., Defendants, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 1–2

Head Matter:
William RUPPRECHT, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CITY OF PITTSFIELD, et al., Defendants, Appellees.
No. 06-2767.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
May 31, 2007.
William Rupprecht, on brief, pro se.
Nancy Frankel Pelletier and Robinson Donovan, P.C., on brief, for appellees.
Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge, and LYNCH, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
After carefully considering the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm the judgment below. McCord v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 390 F.3d 138 (1st Cir.2004) (de novo review).
Among other problems, land-use conflicts rarely support constitutional claims. Extreme circumstances are required to support substantive due process or equal protection claims. Exhaustion of state remedies is a prerequisite for procedural due process and Fifth Amendment takings claims. SFW Arecibo, Ltd. v. Rodriguez, 415 F.3d 135 (1st Cir.2005). Appellant made no showing that he satisfied any of these requirements.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).