Court Opinion

ID: 2964307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:23:46.186538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:26.488524
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1150

                                  DERRICK ANDERSON,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                TOWER RECORDS, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Derrick Anderson on brief pro se.
            ________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.  Derrick  Anderson appeals pro  se the
                      ___________                             ___  __

            dismissal, on remand,  of his claims against   Tower Records,

            two Tower Records security guards, their supervisor, and "any

            other respondeat superiors"  brought pursuant to 42  U.S.C.  

            1983.   The district court  earlier dismissed  the claims  as

            frivolous  within the meaning of  28 U.S.C.   1915(d) because

            Anderson  failed to state facts showing that defendants acted

            under "color of law."   We vacated the dismissal, ruling that

            Anderson  should  be  afforded  the opportunity  to  replead.

            Anderson v. Tower Records, No.  95-1585, slip op. at 3-4 (1st
            ________    _____________

            Cir. Nov. 8, 1995).  In so ruling, we stressed that Anderson,

            in his  original complaint,  had not  met the  "color-of-law"

            requirement through adequate allegations  of fact (let  alone

            proof).  Id.  On remand, Anderson submitted a "Reiteration of
                     ___

            Civil Rights Complaint" which was not significantly different

            from his original complaint.  Under the circumstances, and in

            light of  the fact that Anderson was afforded the opportunity

            to amend, we think the district  court properly dismissed the

            claims on the merits.

                      Affirmed.
                      _________

                                         -2-