Opinion ID: 221651
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Gordon and Kraczkowski.

Text: As we already have explained, Gordon and Kraczkowski prevailed at a bench trial on their estoppel claims because the Board had made specific commitments to them. Consequently, they continue to receive full reimbursement of medical expenses. Nevertheless, they contend that judgment should not have been entered against them on their ultra vires and procedural due process claims. Gordon and Kraczkowski have not explained what other or further relief they might be entitled to receive on these theories. They simply assert, without elaboration and in conclusory fashion, an entitlement to relief. We long have held that claims asserted in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by developed argumentation, are deemed abandoned. United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.1990). So it is here. Another infirmity is apparent. The district court granted summary judgment on the ultra vires and procedural due process claims, see Cahoon I, 2008 WL 64518, at -11, before Gordon and Kraczkowski, in a later bench trial, established the existence of specific promises of full reimbursement, see Cahoon IV, 2010 WL 3385040, at . This changed factual finding presented an avenue by which Gordon and Kraczkowski could, and should, have sought the additional relief they desired. See In re Sun Pipe Line Co., 831 F.2d 22, 24 (1st Cir.1987). But neither Gordon nor Kraczkowski ever asked the district court to modify its earlier judgment on the ultra vires and due process claims in light of Cahoon IV. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e); In re Sun Pipe Line, 831 F.2d at 24 (explaining that a motion asking the court to modify its earlier disposition of a case because of an allegedly erroneous legal result is brought under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)). [I]t is black letter law that it is a party's first obligation to seek any relief that might fairly have been thought available in the district court before seeking it on appeal. Beaulieu v. IRS, 865 F.2d 1351, 1352 (1st Cir.1989). Gordon and Kraczkowski flouted this obligation. Given the circumstances of this case, we see no reason to consider their request for additional (unspecified) relief as a matter of first impression. See, e.g., Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth Coll., 889 F.2d 13, 22 n. 9 (1st Cir.1989).