Court Opinion

ID: 2965197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:37:04.939612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:19.024895
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                         ____________________

No. 97-2050

                            P. F. MCHENRY,

                         Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                  v.

                       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                         Defendant, Appellee.

                         ____________________

             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

         [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Senior U.S. District Judge]

                         ____________________

                                Before

                         Selya, Circuit Judge,
                      Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                      and Boudin, Circuit Judge.

                         ____________________

    P. F. McHenry on brief pro se.
    Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Karen L. Goodwin,
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                         ____________________

                            MARCH 12, 1998
                         ____________________

           Per Curiam.  Appellant P.F. McHenry appeals from the
    district court's dismissal of her complaint under Fed. R. Civ.
    P. 12(b)(1).  We affirm.  For the reasons given by the district
    court in its order dated July 18, 1997, appellant's statutory
    property claim was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 
    Nor did appellant adequately assert a claim for intentional
    infliction of emotional distress since she failed to allege
    that appellee's conduct caused severe emotional distress, a
    necessary element of that cause of action under Massachusetts
    law.  See Tetrault v. Mahoney, Hawkes & Goldings, 425 Mass.
    456, 466, 681 N.E.2d 1189, 1197 (1997).  Consequently,
    dismissal of her complaint was proper.  See Doyle v. Hasbro,
    Inc., 103 F.3d 186, 195 (1st Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of
    claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress under
    Massachusetts law in part because plaintiff never even
    attempted to plead severe distress); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
    12(b)(6).
             Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.