Court Opinion

ID: 2964139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:07.920677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:33.282468
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          May 15, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2158

                                  JEROME E. CASSELL,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                           STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                    [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Cyr and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Jerome E. Cassell on brief pro se.
            _________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.  On a review of the complaint under 28
                      ___________

            U.S.C.      1915(d),   the  district   court  dismissed   the

            "retaliatory  transfer" claims  because they  were frivolous.

            We are satisfied that there  was no abuse of discretion since

            the complaint's  allegations cannot  support an inference  of

            unlawful retaliation or conspiracy.   Reviewing the dismissal

            of appellant's other claims de novo, we find no error in  the
                                        __ ____

            jurisdictional  dismissal  of  the  claims   challenging  the

            conditions of appellant's Virginia confinement and, following

            an opportunity to amend, the dismissal  with prejudice of the

            claims alleging  a deprivation  of, or denial  of access  to,

            personal  property  and  legal  materials.    See  Denton  v.
                                                          ___  ______

            Hernandez,  504 U.S.  25, 34 (1992);  Forte v.  Sullivan, 935
            _________                             _____     ________

            F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1991).

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -2-