Court Opinion

ID: 2964873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:32:28.373442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:02.901121
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1081

                                 JOHN J. SHAUGHNESSY,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               CITY OF LACONIA, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            John J. Shaughnessy on brief pro se.
            ___________________
            John  T.  Alexander   and  Ransmeier  &  Spellman  on  brief   for
            ___________________        ______________________
        appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                  September 22, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   In  this  appeal,  pro  se in  forma
                      ___________

            pauperis appellant John Shaughnessy objects  to the dismissal

            of his civil  rights action asserting  a due process  claim.1
                                                                        1

            The action was dismissed under 28 U.S.C.   1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),

            which  requires dismissal of  an in forma  pauperis complaint

            "at any time" if  it fails to state  a claim for relief.   We

            affirm.

                      In his suit,  Shaughnessy alleged that the  City of

            Laconia  and  various individual  defendants  denied  him due

            process of law by failing to review or hold a hearing  on his

            claim  that he  had  not  received  the  veterans  employment

            preference described  in N.H. Rev.  Stat. Ann.   283  and the

            City's  affirmative action  plan  when  he  applied  for  the

            position of Director of Personnel and Purchasing in  1994 and

            for   the  position   of   Assessing   Technician  in   1995.

            Shaughnessy  failed to state  a claim  for relief  because he

            failed to make sufficient factual allegations to show that he

            had a property interest in  the preference, i.e., that he was

            entitled to the preference.  See 2 Moore's Federal Practice  
                                         ___   ________________________

            12.34[4][a],  at  12-71  (3d  ed.  1997)  ("Dismissal  [of  a

                                
            ____________________

               1While the  complaint asserted  other claims  as well,  on
               1
            appeal Shaugnessy  has not presented  developed argumentation
            regarding  those claims.   Accordingly,  we  do not  consider
            them.   See Martinez  v. Colon,  54 F.3d  980, 990  (1st Cir.
                    ___ ________     _____
            1995) ("It is settled in this circuit that issues adverted to
            on  appeal in  a perfunctory  manner,  unaccompanied by  some
            developed argumentation, are deemed to have been abandoned.")
            (quotation marks and citation omitted).
              

                                         -2-

            complaint] is  proper if  the complaint  lacks an  allegation

            regarding an element  necessary to obtain relief.").   First,

            he did not allege that he had furnished the City proof of his

            entitlement to the veterans preference at the time he applied

            for employment, as required by  N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.   283:7.

            That provision states,  "Veterans, in order to be entitled to

            preference  under this  subdivision, shall  furnish proof  of

            such entitlement to the hiring  authority . . . when applying

            for  employment."   Second, he  did  not allege  that he  had

            requested  the preference on  his employment  application, as

            required by the City's affirmative action plan.

                      Affirmed.
                      _________

                                         -3-