Court Opinion

ID: 2964782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:31:01.585491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:04.211045
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-2048

                                    ERICO DAVIAS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               CLYDE GARRIGAN, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                   [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            Erico Davias on brief pro se.
            ____________
            Paul  M. Gagnon,  United States  Attorney, and  T. David  Plourde,
            _______________                                 _________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for federal appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                     June 3, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   We  agree,  essentially  for the  reasons
                 ___________

            recited in the magistrate-judge's June 24, 1996 report (which

            was later  adopted by  the district judge),  that plaintiff's

            various  claims are  subject to dismissal.   The  judgment is

            modified  simply to  reflect  that a  portion of  plaintiff's

            claims--i.e., those that are barred by Heck v.  Humphrey, 512
                                                   ____     ________

            U.S.  477 (1993), and those  that set forth pendent state-law

            claims--are  dismissed  without  prejudice.    The  remaining
                                    _______

            claims are dismissed with prejudice. 
                                 ____

                 The judgment, as modified, is affirmed.
                 _______________________________________

                                         -2-