Court Opinion

ID: 2965985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:47:19.829929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:24.362042
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATIONNOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]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

No. 99-1033

                        SHANNON E. HICKS,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

   MASSACHUSETTS DEPT. OF CORRECTION, M. MALONEY, COMMISSIONER,
                   BRIDGEWATER STATE HOSPITAL,

                      Defendants, Appellees,
                       ____________________

     MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, NATE JACKSON, MARICOPA
               COUNTY CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES,

                       Interested Parties.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

            [Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                    Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                        Circuit Judges.
                                
                                
                                
     Shannon E. Hicks on brief pro se.
     Nancy A. White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and
Beatriz E. Van Meek, Counsel, Department of Corrections, on Motion
for Summary Disposition.

September 14, 1999

  
            Per Curiam. Shannon Hicks appeals pro se from the
  dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking damages
  against the Massachusetts Department of Corrections,
  Commissioner Michael Maloney, and Bridgewater State Hospital
  based on alleged violations of the Interstate Agreement on
  Detainers ("IAD").  Upon careful review of the record and
  filings in this court, we affirm essentially for the reasons
  stated by the district court in its December 4, 1998 memorandum
  and order.  
            We add that Hicks has made no argument that the
  district court erred in denying his motion to supplement the
  complaint, and any claims that he may have against the Maricopa
  County Sheriff's Office, Nate Jackson, or the Maricopa County
  Correctional Health Services are not before us.  In addition,
  his § 1983 law suit below was limited to alleged violations of
  the IAD, and any claims that he may have for violation of the
  Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, the Fifth and Fourteenth
  Amendments of the United States Constitution, or the
  Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure are not before us.  
            Affirmed.