Georgacarakos v. Clemons

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

        June 1, 1994            [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

No. 93-2144 

                               PETER N. GEORGACARAKOS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                JAMES CLEMONS, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                  Cyr, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________
                          Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, and
                                  ____________________
                                Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                       _____________

                                 ____________________

            Peter N. Georgacarakos on brief pro se.
            ______________________
            Michael   E.  Carpenter,   Attorney  General,  and   Diane  Sleek,
            _______________________                              ____________
        Assistant Attorney General,  on brief for  appellees (Except  Appellee
        Orlando).

____________________

____________________

Per Curiam.  Plaintiff Peter Georgacarakos filed an
                      __________

action  against state  prison officials  and a  deputy United

            States Marshal.  He premised  his claims on 42 U.S.C.    1983

            and  the Fifth  Amendment.   Upon  the  recommendations of  a

            magistrate judge,  the district court granted  the motions to

            dismiss of two of  the defendants and the motion  for summary

            judgment of the remaining defendants.

                      We  have  carefully  reviewed the  record  and  the

            briefs of the parties and affirm the judgment of the district

            court for  essentially the  reasons stated in  the magistrate

            judge's  Recommended  Dispositions  of  the  two  motions  to

            dismiss, Docket #27 and  #53, and the Recommended Disposition

            of the  motion for  summary judgment,  docket #54,  which the

            district court judge adopted.  Because the magistrate judge's

            reports  were sound and well-grounded in the law, there is no

            reason for us to repeat his  conclusions here.  See In re San
                                                            ___ _________

            Juan DuPont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation, 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st
            _______________________________________

            Cir. 1993).

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

-3-