Court Opinion

ID: 2965909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:46:16.679742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:08.698820
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 98-2203

                         JAMSHED ANVARI,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
          WILLIAM A. CONTE, EDITH NOURSE ROGERS VETERANS
          ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL, FRANCES JULIE FUSCO,
             JOEL ARNOLD, MICHAEL CAREY, JOAN MILNER
                        AND UNITED STATES,

                      Defendants, Appellees.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

            [Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                      Selya, Circuit Judge,
                 Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                
                                
                                
     Jamshed Anvari on brief pro se.
     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Michael J.
Pineault, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellees.

July 15, 1999

                                
            Per Curiam.  Pro se plaintiff Jamshed Anvari appeals
  a district court order that summarily dismissed his complaint 
  based on the defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.
  Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (5), and (6).  Having thoroughly reviewed the
  record and the parties' briefs on appeal, we conclude that the
  order of dismissal is correct.  Plaintiff's claims are wholly
  preempted by the remedies available to him under civil service
  law.  See, e.g., Berry v. Hollander, 925 F.2d 311, 314-16 (9th
  Cir. 1991); Heaney v. United States Veterans Administration,
  756 F.2d 1215, 1220 (5th Cir. 1985); Premachandra v. United
  States, 739 F.2d 392, 394 (8th Cir. 1984); Roth v. United
  States, 952 F.2d 611, 614 (1st Cir. 1991); Berrios v. Dep't of
  the Army, 884 F.2d 28, 30 (1st Cir. 1989); Maniktahla v. John
  J. Pershing VA Medical Center, 967 F. Supp.  379, 381-82 (E.D.
  Mo. 1997); Hicks v. Brown 929 F. Supp. 1184, 1187-89 (E.D. Ark.
  1996); Gregor v. Derwinski, 911 F. Supp. 643 (W.D.N.Y. 1996). 
  Consequently, we need not address the parties' remaining
  arguments.
            Affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.