Davias v. Social Security Adm.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: December 24, 2003
• Docket: 03-1376
• Status: Published

Opinion

Not for publication in West's Federal Reporter Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 03-1376

ERICO DAVIAS,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 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

Boudin, Chief Judge, Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.

Erico Davias on brief pro se. Thomas P. Colantuono, United States Attorney, and T. David Plourde, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee Social Security Administration.

December 24, 2003 Per Curiam. The judgment is affirmed substantially for the

reasons recited in the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation

dated January 22, 2003, which was subsequently adopted by the

district judge. We add that neither below nor on appeal has

plaintiff set forth "a general scenario which, if proven, would

entitle [him] to relief against the defendant[s] on some cognizable

theory." Hatch v. Dep't for Children, Youth & Families, 274 F.3d

12, 19 (1st Cir. 2001). See, e.g., Brown v. Newberger, 291 F.3d

89, 92 (1st Cir. 2002) (explaining why claims against state agency

would fail); Monahan v. Dorchester Counseling Center, Inc., 961

F.2d 987, 994-95 (1st Cir. 1992) (concluding that Restatement of

Bill of Rights for Mental Health Patients, 42 U.S.C. § 10841,

"creates no enforceable federal rights") (footnote omitted). The

district court thus did not abuse its discretion in denying

plaintiff's request to amend his complaint on the ground of

futility.

Affirmed.

-2-